I'm not sure how simplified the game would be, anyway. In my experience 9th-level prepared spellcasters are, by far, the most complicated characters for both players and GMs.
But I thought having a Catfolk enchantress, Tengu ninja, Aasimar atheist cleric of rage and law, and Human conjuration (teleportation) wizard was the core iconic party makeup? Boy, have I been misled...
To answer the question, yes. I'd be just fine with that, and my players would be too.
No! No!! No!!!
how many times do I have to tell you?!?
The Catfolk is arcane trickster. The Tengu is a monk. The Aasimar is an Ur Priest of Rovagug. And the human is the commoner but using a 45 point buy for abilities.
Try to remember it this time.
Ugh! I'm such a bad RPG player. I need to seriously get back to reading those old classic tales depicting these iconic heroes and their daring, anthropomorphic deeds! I vaguely remember the catfolk flirting with everything, and the bird-man being an attorney....
|
A while back I played a core only game. One of the other players played a dwarven rogue in it. Pretty funny character. He didn't like the idea of getting dirty and was too prim and proper for 'dwarven work'. He had grew up reading human stories of nobility and attempted to emulate them. Eventually he was kicked out of his clan for not contributing. He then shaved his beard and set out for the surface. It quickly became obvious the GM didn't like the character. The dwarf's build was some kind of str and cha build that was going to focus on feinting and brass knuckle fighting if I recall right.
The first (and only) session ended when the dwarf was attempting to hit on the elven woman giving us the quest. He had been attempting to seduce women from the get-go and being snubbed (despite some good rolls). For this he nat 20'd and had a pretty good diplomacy. The GM had the elf state something like she wouldn't lower herself to fraternize with a dirty dwarf.
So this is where things started to breakdown as the dwarf player started arguing with the GM. It ended with the GM (and I'm paraphrasing) that that's not how dwarves act, they would never shave their beards, they hate elves, and he was simply trying to sabotage his game and wasn't taking anythihng seriously. No reason was really given for any of it. I can't say the player was specifically trying to antagonize the GM, but I doubt it. In any event he never said anything about the character before the game began.
I bring this up as an example of why I tend to get wary of limiting games like the one described. Pathfinder is a team game and the GM and Players should work together. All options aren't necessarily a good or bad thing, and the same for no options. The GM needs to have his view of the campaign world but it's not just his when the player's come in. If the player wants to try a unique race, isn't it better if the GM talks with the Player and finds out why? If it's mechanics, maybe reskin it as something else or offer up a different option. If it's flavor, maybe there's something else that works. Or maybe they exist as a small tribe somewhere that wouldn't impact the majority of the game but give some explanation. But if the GM has pre-conceived notions of how a player should act because of their race, even a core only race, that can cause issues as well.
Meh, I think I'm starting towards rant direction now and might be slightly off topic but here's my thoughts at least.
|
|
Ah wasn't very clear. I find when the GM is limiting (not necessarily just core only) they usually have a vision of how things turn out and are, and are less open to player's interpretation of things outside a set norm. Not always the case of course, but in my experience they tend to run together. Experiences do vary of course.
As far as your example, I'd counter with a more thorough question of what elements you're wanting to include in your game versus why the player wants to play the kitsune gunslinger. If you want a pretty straight forward take on the Arthurian legend and all the players are in agreement, then yes this isn't the best fit of course. But what is it he wants? Does he want to play the kitsune because of racial traits? If so, couldn't you just reskin him as a human and take away the fox form. Is it because he wants to be a fox person? Perhaps your arthurian story could involve more racial diversity and still keep the story intact. The same for gunslinger. Does he just want to use guns? Admittedly I would personallly feel a gunslinger to be a far greater immersion breaker than a kitsune in that situation, but could this be accounted for? I believe guns first started appearing around the 1100-1200s (someone feel free to correct) and I can't recall when the Arthurian Legends were said to take place, but it's not the most farfetched concept. Perhaps even the kitsune could represent the first cutlure to build guns and has come to pledge loyaltiy to King Arthur.
Now if all the other players also felt like it was too immersion breaking then sure it's a good reason to deny it. Or maybe they're fine with the charcter and just don't like the arthurian court idea. Just some more ramblings.
...
(Plus it's never made any sense to me that elves or dwarves wouldn't have as much variation in personality and behavior as humans do.)
...
Some legends/stories, that's kinda the whole point.
Only humans have a wide range of behavior. Humans can't understand why the X always act like complete DB's. It's because they have no choice. The wiring in their head doesn't allow them to have a different personality. Like the examples of the Fey being unable to give a straight answer even when the evasion and misdirection hurt them.On the other side the non-humans can't believe that some humans are different than other humans. Since a human betrayed me once 7 centuries ago, all humans are untrustworthy.
{shrug} I don't really like it, but I've seen that attitude in a lot of campaigns and gaming groups.
...
On the gripping hand, if I've spent time developing a campaign setting based on King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table it's a bit annoying to have a player argue that I have to let them to play a Kitsune Gunslinger because the character is legal by RAW and I'm a bad GM trying to take away their fun if I say no.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
I was working on a home brew world. There were quite a few house rules. But most of them were up for discussion if the players really didn't like it. There were only a few I was going to stand firm on for story reasons. No one can combine arcane and divine powers. No guns. No elves. No orcs. Dimensional travel or time affecting magic very difficult. So SLA's or spells like that would be much higher level if even possible at all.
No one says anything about having any problems with the house rules.
Game day I get a drow gunslinger, orc summoner, mystic theurge, and dimensional-step assassin.
I was so angry. Then they all started berating me for trying to limit their choices. They went out of their way. Making PC's completely unlike any they had ever made to specifically pick exactly what I said wouldn't work. Without any discussion before hand. But it was all my fault.
I didn't GM for a year after that. I still won't use anything I made up with any of those guys. Published material only. You don't like it, go find the author and yell at him.
Flicking through the thread, I'll add my (not especially insightful or grand) two cents;
Could I enjoy a game restricted so? Well, yes, I suppose. But that statement I could have some response to a stimuli is a bit of a weak one. Could I enjoy it more than a free-for-all grab anything official (possibly more)? Again yes; however I would not expect it.
YMMV, etc - but to my experiences; GMs/players who can't tell an interesting story aren't going to gain this ability magically because you shuffled out the perceived easy triggers for making a snowflake. There are those who can provide a fun experience even under those restrictions and I don't see this somehow diminished if the range of options expands.
That's anecdotal but I don't see options hurt the game; only improve it by giving players and GM greater potential stories.
Edit (to join serious points): That's not to say that a game with restrictions is bad; but with a GM I don't know imposing them, I would decline out of a ground state expectation - that the GM will want a cleaving to traditional adventures. And well, tradition? That's just something we've done before.
That, and how will I wrestle that dragon to the ground with just the core rulebook? Don't you enjoy silly characters?
|
Im sure the the conversation is probably somewhere over-----------> here by now but ill put in my answer.
Yes I could is the short answer.
The long one depends on the context of the situation. I dont mind restrictions on races I have never been Mos Eisley in my fantasy gaming. Though when it comes to classes I like having many options. I'm also odd in that I like multi-classing and even prestige classes especially the "sucky" ones. Though if classes were restricted im sure with the rules available I could make a satisfying character.
The GM is also important. I know one guy who if he said "human fighters only" Id join right up because we have so much gaming history together I know the game will be great. I also know a guy who if he said anything goes including 3PP i'd have to bow out becasue the game will be ridiculous. Not because the options but because the GM couldnt wield it.
So the answer is simple and complex.
|
|
Much of this discussion has reaffirmed my belief that a campaign really needs to start with a Session 0 where everybody gets together to go over house rules, create the characters together, and figure out why they're all hanging out with each other.
Yeah Im way ahead of that. I screen my home tables so I know im getting an optimal experience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess to actually contribute to the thread, I play with groups that I've basically grown up with. We all read the same fantasy books, we all grew up playing D&D together with my dad as the DM, or we all know each other through another of this group and are all somehow on the same page. It's a blessing to be able to have that kind of consistency in tone, because most of us enjoy the hell out of fantasy like the GRRM or Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, Steven Brust, etc. where the action is grittier and the magic less at the forefront of the world. Alternatively, we also absolutely love Eberron, where magic is at the forefront of the world, but it's incorporated in such a way that it feels cohesive and smart.
We've also all come to the conclusion that we don't have much interest in running the alternate races unless there's a very good reason for it. We don't have Ming the sexy catfolk chick in her chainmail bikini and bubbly-pop Anime background side-by-side with Gorgrok the scarred half-orc veteran, trying to run away from his past of misdeeds. That's where I think some groups get hung up; the tone of those two characters, while each 1,000,000% valid and valuable to the campaign and group that supports them, just doesn't match. It's all preference, but I think at the end of the day being unique and being cohesive are two different things. Being unique only works so far as the other players are concerned, and if they roll their eyes every time Gorgrok tries to turn the encounter with the beautiful elvish princess into a bloodbath, or when Ming tries to purr sensuously at the vile priest of Zon Kuthon, they's gon' be some problems.
More directly, simplifying the number of races and classes can lend the game a more "classic" feel, which can actually be refreshing. Fantasy tropes have changed over time to the extent that the things that actually avoid cliches are becoming cliche, so actually playing Lord of the Rings might be a breath of fresh air. Alternatively, if you're a group like mine, sometimes it's nice to take a break from your usual type of game and try out a different sort of tone. We did do the all-animal-people-race game, and it was fun for the first few sessions, but eventually just turned back into, "The arrow goes into your shoulder, tearing the flesh and sending a wave of pain down your arm. You grunt, undeterred, knowing that if you don't slay the bandit with this strike the pain won't matter..."
TL;DR: Simplifying the game is entirely dependent on the players and the group. As is limiting or restricting--either by DM fiat or consensus--races or classes. It's everyone's game, and it's nobody's game; we all have to make it our own.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with complex or simple games or games with increased or limited choices as long as the focus is on actual game play and not the mini-game of character option management.
And more choices doesn't always equal good.
I'd rather have my Fighter take a broad Brawler Training/Feat that covers all aspects of brawling/unarmed rough combat (punching, pushing, tripping, etc) than to a have a game that offers micro options that each require a single Training/Feat for all the components of brawling, i.e. a feat to give +2 to pushing, a feat to give +2 to tripping, etc - where the latter is presented as "advanced", more complex or presenting more "options".
So the above an example of when more is not always better.
More options are good if they (imo)
- don't override focus from game play
- do not create a micro game
- don't create a dire need for system mastery
- don't create a drastically uneven play experience by picking choice B over choice A. Different play experience should be expected, radical differences in success rates based on build choices should not.
Again, - options are good, options for the sake of having more options are not. IMO (assume this disclaimer if I don't mention it at the end of every statement).
Players and GMs need to look at systems and ask themselves if the options work, and to what end all those options are serving their game play expectations or to enhance their game play.
Anyway
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
There's a point when the characters suggested just show the players either weren't paying any attention or just aren't interested in what you'd proposed. Sucks when they can't let you know up front. Past a certain point, there's really no need to try to work things in.
Oh no, they were absolutely listening. They intentionally picked exactly what few possibilities I said wouldn't work. They were intentionally starting a fight because I tried to start a campaign without just allowing absolutely everything.
I really wish they had just said they weren't interested before I spent all that time getting a campaign world ready for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM.
It doesn't, but really, why is a Half-Elf Rogue better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin? Because there are more books about Half-Elf Rogues? Because the imagery is more prevalent in fantasy media overall?
I think that's a dangerous line to toe. I defend Gorbacz stance on restrictions "just for flavor". I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More directly, simplifying the number of races and classes can lend the game a more "classic" feel, which can actually be refreshing. Fantasy tropes have changed over time to the extent that the things that actually avoid cliches are becoming cliche, so actually playing Lord of the Rings might be a breath of fresh air. Alternatively, if you're a group like...
That's exactly how I feel.
I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM.It doesn't, but really, why is a Half-Elf Rogue better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin? Because there are more books about Half-Elf Rogues? Because the imagery is more prevalent in fantasy media overall?
I think that's a dangerous line to toe. I defend Gorbacz stance on restrictions "just for flavor". I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
Because some people just don't want that in their game. Just like some people do want that in their game. Just because a GM doesn't want to run a game with all the different "Featured Races" and "Uncommon Races" makes him/her no different than a GM who wants to allow them.
Everyone has their preferences and some don't like all the monster / animorphic races, while some do. So I don't get how that's "a dangerous line to toe".
No one is saying a Half-Elf Rogue is better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin. The problem that we are running into here, is that it seems the folks who want more options are taking offense against the more "traditional" group. No one is saying one side of the fence is better than the other... we are all saying we prefer one side of the fence to the other.
Lastly, if a player doesn't like the character creation guidelines a GM wants to put into place, then find another game. No one is forcing anyone to join such a game.
I think that's a dangerous line to toe. I defend Gorbacz stance on restrictions "just for flavor". I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
Because Jar Jar Binks.
Seriously. A single, completely tone-deaf character pretty much ruined the entire movie.
"Yousa gonna let me play a slapstick Gungan?"
Not sure where this myth that a bad roleplayer instantly becomes a good roleplayer because they're playing a dwarf instead of a grippli comes from.
No idea. But my point -- since you seem to have missed it -- is that a slapstick Gungan, no matter how well-roleplayed, had no place in Star Wars. It was a tonal mismatch resulting in a epic train-wreck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure where this myth that a bad roleplayer instantly becomes a good roleplayer because they're playing a dwarf instead of a grippli comes from.I think that's a dangerous line to toe. I defend Gorbacz stance on restrictions "just for flavor". I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?Because Jar Jar Binks.
Seriously. A single, completely tone-deaf character pretty much ruined the entire movie.
"Yousa gonna let me play a slapstick Gungan?"
Seconded. I can name dozens of movies with annoying-as-hell vanilla human characters. Heck, the first Dungeons and Dragons movie had an absolutely unbearable annoying sidekick character who was pure human.
Would Jar Jar Binks have been any less annoying if he was human instead of CGI?
@OP: Yes. Yes I could.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a dangerous line to toe. I defend Gorbacz stance on restrictions "just for flavor". I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?Because Jar Jar Binks.
Seriously. A single, completely tone-deaf character pretty much ruined the entire movie.
"Yousa gonna let me play a slapstick Gungan?"
Jar-Jar was a symptom, not a disease.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weren't metachlorines (weird name btw, what are they all some chlorine based life form?) just the bacteria used to establish affinity to the force?NO! NO! NO!
There are only three Star Wars movies.
Jar-Jar Binks does not exist.
The Force is not a magic bacteria that lives inside somebody's blood.This is my reality, and I accept no other.
Nope. Midi-chlorians apparently were the mechanism the individual used to sense and access the Force.
Basically, Georgie glanced at his kid's middle-school biology chapter on mitochondria and then threw up onto a script.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is saying a Half-Elf Rogue is better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin. The problem that we are running into here, is that it seems the folks who want more options are taking offense against the more "traditional" group. No one is saying one side of the fence is better than the other... we are all saying we prefer one side of the fence to the other.Lastly, if a player doesn't like the character creation guidelines a GM wants to put into place, then find another game. No one is forcing...
Look, I'm going to leave this here because I don't want to derail this conversation, but I think yours is a dangerous line of thinking.
Consider for a second what would happen if someone went to an establishment and was rejected because "they don't serve their kind here" - is the answer "just go somewhere else"? Or is it "maybe the storeowner is a huge douche and should try to change"?
I personally don't understand furries. The whole deviantart thing gives me a little bit of the creeps.
But I don't consider it any more "non-traditional" than a fricking elf, which is a fictional creature that only took its modern image after Tolkien said that's how an elf looked like, circa 1920.
What I am saying is that you need to reconsider that just because a player is playing a Half-Elf they would do a better job at roleplaying than if they were playing whatever they wanted to, and if some GM says "No, you can only play Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Humans and Halflings aka five flavors of white people", then it is in your best interest, as someone who cares about personal expression, as someone who is in some ways a social misfit because you play tabletops, you need to look at that guy and say "Dude. Chill."
Also, whoever said Jar Jar Binks was a tone deaf character, that wasn't the fault of Jar Jar, that was the fault of whoever wrote him there.
A Human Paladin being played as Lawful Dumb is worse for the health of a roleplay than a morally nuanced Wayang Knight of Ozem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only could I enjoy it, I'd prefer it. As I get older I'm realizing that I prefer simpler rules, less options, etc. Others don't, and that's cool too.
So, precisely what I said. The mechanism for an individuals affinity to the force, aka their level of ability to access the force.Weren't metachlorines (weird name btw, what are they all some chlorine based life form?) just the bacteria used to establish affinity to the force?NO! NO! NO!
There are only three Star Wars movies.
Jar-Jar Binks does not exist.
The Force is not a magic bacteria that lives inside somebody's blood.This is my reality, and I accept no other.
Nope. Midi-chlorians apparently were the mechanism the individual used to sense and access the Force.
Basically, Georgie glanced at his kid's middle-school biology chapter on mitochondria and then threw up onto a script.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that they were only an indicator or effect rather than a mechanism or cause. If only. Still, the idea of the Force being quantifiable in units boggles the mind and goes against a great deal of Yoda's teachings from Episode V.
If its good enough for mos isley cantina...
Consider for a second what would happen if someone went to an establishment and was rejected because "they don't serve their kind here"
I chuckled. Just to clarify my stance, in-game racism is fine. I actually encourage it.
No one is saying a Half-Elf Rogue is better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin. The problem that we are running into here, is that it seems the folks who want more options are taking offense against the more "traditional" group. No one is saying one side of the fence is better than the other... we are all saying we prefer one side of the fence to the other.Lastly, if a player doesn't like the character creation guidelines a GM wants to put into place, then find another game. No one is forcing...
Look, I'm going to leave this here because I don't want to derail this conversation, but I think yours is a dangerous line of thinking.
Consider for a second what would happen if someone went to an establishment and was rejected because "they don't serve their kind here" - is the answer "just go somewhere else"? Or is it "maybe the storeowner is a huge douche and should try to change"?
I personally don't understand furries. The whole deviantart thing gives me a little bit of the creeps.
But I don't consider it any more "non-traditional" than a fricking elf, which is a fictional creature that only took its modern image after Tolkien said that's how an elf looked like, circa 1920.What I am saying is that you need to reconsider that just because a player is playing a Half-Elf they would do a better job at roleplaying than if they were playing whatever they wanted to, and if some GM says "No, you can only play Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Humans and Halflings aka five flavors of white people", then it is in your best interest, as someone who cares about personal expression, as someone who is in some ways a social misfit because you play tabletops, you need to look at that guy and say "Dude. Chill."
Also, whoever said Jar Jar Binks was a tone deaf character, that wasn't the fault of Jar Jar, that was the fault of whoever wrote him there.
A Human Paladin being played as Lawful Dumb is worse for the health of a roleplay than a morally nuanced Wayang Knight of Ozem.
Not allowing certain character concepts that don't fit the theme of the campaign is equivalent to segregation-era bigotry? Is that the argument you're running with?
Y'know, people keep talking about mos eisley and all this stuff, but I'm not even sure if what the OP proposes is actually a simplified game. It's more traditional, yes, but nearly all the mechanics are still there and PF has a ton, TON of crunch.
So what I want to know is, would people want to play a simplified game in terms of mechanics. More consolidated skills, less modifiers and spells, more consolidation of combat rules, less weapons...
Sure, I'd try a rules-lite game. What system are you suggesting?...
I see it as if I wanted a simpler game system with less options I would play that instead of Pathfinder, and when I want a game like that, I do. Trying to trim Pathfinder to fit those specifications is to the detriment of the system as the complexity is a potential selling point. I know it is to me.
D&D Next is what youz all talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is saying a Half-Elf Rogue is better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin. The problem that we are running into here, is that it seems the folks who want more options are taking offense against the more "traditional" group. No one is saying one side of the fence is better than the other... we are all saying we prefer one side of the fence to the other.Lastly, if a player doesn't like the character creation guidelines a GM wants to put into place, then find another game. No one is forcing...
Look, I'm going to leave this here because I don't want to derail this conversation, but I think yours is a dangerous line of thinking.
Consider for a second what would happen if someone went to an establishment and was rejected because "they don't serve their kind here" - is the answer "just go somewhere else"? Or is it "maybe the storeowner is a huge douche and should try to change"?
I personally don't understand furries. The whole deviantart thing gives me a little bit of the creeps.
But I don't consider it any more "non-traditional" than a fricking elf, which is a fictional creature that only took its modern image after Tolkien said that's how an elf looked like, circa 1920.What I am saying is that you need to reconsider that just because a player is playing a Half-Elf they would do a better job at roleplaying than if they were playing whatever they wanted to, and if some GM says "No, you can only play Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, Humans and Halflings aka five flavors of white people", then it is in your best interest, as someone who cares about personal expression, as someone who is in some ways a social misfit because you play tabletops, you need to look at that guy and say "Dude. Chill."
I agree that I think we had best just leave this where it lay, because you are clearly missing my point. At no point in any of my posts have I ever stated I think "traditional" is better than more options. I am very clearly stating that I prefer the traditional races over the more exotic races in my roleplaying. That's not to say the traditional is better... again. I reiterate that I prefer that style, by no means am I saying it's better.
On a personal note, I am extremely offended by your assessment that because I prefer the standard Core races that I am a racist/bigot/sexists/etc. My preference in a roleplaying game has absolutely nothing to do with my views and opinions on society.
On a personal note, I am extremely offended by your assessment that because I prefer the standard Core races that I am a racist/bigot/sexists/etc. My preference in a roleplaying game has absolutely nothing to do with my views and opinions on society.
Definitely backing up Faelyn here. Don't bring real-world stuff like that into this. Having an idea of what you like your RPG world to look like in no way should be assumed to reflect that player's personal biases about race, gender, sexuality, politics, etc. Wanting to play a scarred half-orc rager over a strange or abnormal race/class combination doesn't mean you have no imagination, or that you aren't a person who cares about personal expression, or that you're engaging in any number of oppressive or unhealthy social actions.
Personally, I'd have to say that I probably have more imagination and creativity when it comes to fantasy stuff than most of my friends; that's just how it is, and that's fine, but it's mostly because I'm more into it than they are. But that doesn't mean my friend who is such a virtuoso at guitar that he can't actually find a teacher in this state to teach him doesn't know anything about creativity. In fact, my friend who is the least into fantasy RPG stuff usually comes up with the most unique and exciting character ideas and backstories.
What character you play doesn't have to have any bearing on how creative or unique you are as a person. If you don't accept that, then I'd think you're necessarily of the mind that if you play a character that annoys the other players at your table then you'd believe you're an annoying person. And I'm inclined to say that isn't what anyone thinks.
Just to clarify, I am not equating liking traditional RPG races to biggotry and not implying Faelyn is such a thing; I am just saying that traditional RPG races were conceived in an extremely Western, white European environment and it wouldn't hurt people to try to get out of their comfort zone and try to include new concepts...
And if someone wants to explore out of the box and gets rejected because their character isn't an expy of a Tolkien character, then the problem is with the DM and not the player.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if someone wants to explore out of the box and gets rejected because their character isn't an expy of a Tolkien character, then the problem is with the DM and not the player.
I dont think the problem is with either. I think the problem is that they want two different things out of the game.