|
Obviously the GM is no good at his job if he can't have a complete setting and campaign designed around the just-created characters moments after character creation ends. If he was a decent GM, he would have already prepared all of that for every possible permutation of characters that the group could create.
Which no one but you is saying.
Again what is this fear from members of the hobby toward the DM not having absolute control. If possible both sides should come to a compromise. Or one or the other walks away if neither can find a middle ground. If I want to play a Gunslinger the DM refuses. I either pick another class or walk away. If the majority of the players at the table want to play classes and races that the DM is not comfortable with. The DM can either try to accomodate and adapt. Or walk away.
If as a DM some here want to have absolute control at the table as a DM. While I don't like playing with such DMs. I can respect their style of DMing. Do us a favor though and stop pretending to be open minded about player control at the table. It's obvious some really are not interested in working with the players. While demonizing players.
|
|
I don't think it's a fear, nor about absolute control. It's just a pushback against perceived absolute statements made on the internet. And as we all know, statements cannot go unchallenged.
That's the thing though no here is saying that a DM has to give players absolute control. Nor that a DM who refuses a concept is a absolute tyrant. Myself all i'm saying is give me a reason. Even if I may not agree with. If anyone is making absolute statements. Backed up with absurd examples it's the pro-DM side imo.
If it's not a game I am interested in running, if I have no interest, for example, in that all cat folk campaign, and I don't enjoy it, then frankly I will likely offer a subpar product in that game. I don't want to run that game. If my heart isn't in it, the. It's going to effect every players experience. I need to have passion for the game I am running.
Well unless your forced as in someone putting a gun to your head. If your going to still run a game that your not going to enjoy then the blame is on you. If your not having fun. If a DM dislikes Asisimars and Tieflings and the group wants to play a mix of them. Then still runs the game. Well the fault is on him. Not only that if I knew the DM was running a crap game on purpose to spite the players I would never every play with such a DM. That's a good way to get blacklisted in my neck of the woods.
And as we all know, statements cannot go unchallenged.
I disagree with this, and personally think you should be ashamed for making such a statement!
And I disagree with THIS, and think you should make a public apology for your shameless statement!And as we all know, statements cannot go unchallenged.I disagree with this, and personally think you should be ashamed for making such a statement!
YOU'RE the shameless one, you hussy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YOU'RE the shameless one, you hussy!
Oh, what an amazing comeback. Your wit is profound. I am sorely bested.
YOU'RE the shameless one, you hussy!Oh, what an amazing comeback. Your wit is profound. I am sorely bested.
No, my face is sorely bested! Ooh! BUUUUUUURRRRRNNNN~!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are all under arrest for extreme silliness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf it! It's the fuzz!
*smurfbomb-vanish!*
Just as an side thing:
It's funny but some of the people I disagree with the most on these forums are some of the ones I would be most intrigued to game with.
For example LazarX and TOZ are two that I don't agree with but think playing with him would be great.
So, there's always all this talk about "the setting." Oh, that concept doesn't fit "the setting." That doesn't exist in "the setting." Has anyone but me been in a game where the PCs make their characters first and the GM makes the setting after? It would certainly get around all these problems involving "the setting."
Me and my group are doing that for our next game. It'll hopefully be pretty cool, especially with everyone reflavouring everything.
Refluffing classes is easy. I'm not even sure what refluffing races looks like. There are no dwarves in my setting, but you want to play one, so you're a short, 50 year old young human who...
Well, that's not refluffing if it's the exact same. It's more like... dwarves in one of my settings are centaurian ants that look like Formians.
|
|
Crap game to spite the players? Really? You going there? Ok, so if you were forced to play a type of character you don't enjoy you wouldn't end up not playing it as well as you would something you do? You want to talk straw men, this is the emperor of all straw men. That isn't even close to what I said, and I have trouble believing you don't know that.
You wrote:
If it's not a game I am interested in running, if I have no interest, for example, in that all cat folk campaign, and I don't enjoy it, then frankly I will likely offer a subpar product in that game. I don't want to run that game. If my heart isn't in it, the. It's going to effect every players experience. I need to have passion for the game I
am running.
If your going to post that if you don't like the the character concepts the players bring to the table. Decide to run it and admit that your going to do a poor job of it. Then expect to be called on it. It's you that essential aired your own dirty laundry so to speak. Don't get mad at me if your willing to admit that if your not into the player characters concepts that your going to do a poor job as a DM.
It's like a ex-buddy of mine that made a extremely poor sexual comment at a dinning table. I can't even post it hear as it goes against the rules of the board. With woman at the table as it was about them. It alienated some of our social circle and he gets called out on it. Gets angry and offended. On one hand people today want to say whatever they want. On the other suddenly what they say or certain parts of it become immune to criticism. Well you can't have it both ways.
|
|
A matter of perception again.
I suspect part of it is wondering who you're attacking when you seem so vehement against someone, but your stated position is so reasonable it's hard to imagine anyone being against it. I've never seen a GM come out and say "because I'm the GM and I need to show my authority". I haven't seen a GM I even suspected of those motives since high school and then it wasn't about banning character concepts.
I have seen players argue with GMs who've given reasons for not allowing something.
More than one poster like myself have tried to find some sort of common ground on the topic. Everytime we try either someone comes along and declares it's player entitlement. Or that were doing it because the DM is a tyrant. No one said that. I certainly did not. Or come up with extreme and unbeleivable examples of players acting out of line. Their a point where one feels like one is not only talking to a wall. It's also made out of adamntium.
Color me shocked that of course it's only players who argue with DMs. The difference between you and me on the subject. I'm willing to admit to bad behavior on both sides. When I was younger and dumber at first I was a problem player. I rapidly outgrew that. If you don't no one wants to ask you to their games. I have gamed with some truly horrid DMs who did give ultimatiums. As I said and which was ignored is that it's rare. I never said it happened all the time. Even one or two other posters said they had to deal with similar DMs.
I don't understand why trying to find common ground at a table is such a bad thing. If both or one side can't come to a agreement. Both are free to leave the table. A player should not force a character concept on a DM. A DM should give a explanation for disallowing something at the table.
|
|
There's a helluva difference between being willing to try to run even though the players have pushed you into a campaign your heart isn't in and doing a bad job because of it and "running a crap game on purpose to spite the players".
To me why bother in both cases. Even if the first is less worse then the second. I have been in a few campaigns where the DM heart is not in it. To be blunt they suck. No matter how hard the DM tries to hide it the entire table can see it. NPC are flat. Fight are boring. DM speak in monologue. It's a waste of both players and DMs time imo. The second maybe a handful thankfully. I don't stick around when the DM is a dick imo
One is trying to hard to accommodate your players and failing. The other is being a dick. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was talking about the first: remember it was in response to "Why is the campaign that I want to run more important than the campaign that my players want to play in? "
Again why bother putting both the DMs and players through what amounts to be a waste of time. Unless your forced at gunpoint no one is forcing anyone to run anything they don't want. It's hard to feel sympathy for a DM who willingly put himself in that situation. I'm a fan of Rifts. At one point both as a player and GM I burnt out on the system. I was asked to run games a few times. I refused. As I knew that my performance at the table would be horrible. I was in no mood to waste my time and the players as well.
I don't get members of this hobby. Why would anyone think that if a DM runs a game. Knows they are not going to enjoy it. Probably end up doing a bad job of things. Expect some kind of positive validation. People who have poor performance at work are not praised. Why would I do so to a DM who knowingly is going to run a poor game. That apples to me as well. If a decided to run a game that I would nto enjoy. I would deserve to be called out about it.
With dwarf stats? I still don't get it.
Yes with the dwarf stats. They actually match ant-people surprisingly well.. Especially if you add in the variant racial traits from ARG, makes them very anti-giant.
Does that satisfy people who want to play dwarves?
Yes, if they wanted it for the mechanics. If they wanted it for the default dwarf flavour, then obviously you wouldn't have done reflavouring to begin with.
|
|
But something restricted isn't just suddenly appearing just because you say "but I want it!"
So asking for a explanation as to why a DM refuses something translates into demands. No one saying that. All were saying that if you refuse say Catfolk give a reason. I can almost guarantee that most players will be disappointed yet accept the refusal. Is it that hard to say "I don't allow catfolk because.. ".
Just explaining why "just suck it up and give them their cat folk party" isn't always an option. Sometimes likes and dislikes are just visceral reactions, not logical step by step determinations.
And no one saying that. Interesting how asking for a reason as to why a DM refuses a character concept. Turns into the DM suddenly "having to suck it up". It's as if people re ignoring that I and others want a middle ground. Now if as a DM some don't want to give a reason for refusing a character concept. Then admit to it. Why bother I'm sure someone will chime that asking for a reason is going to be seen as player entitlement or forcing the "dm to suck it up". Which by the way telling the DM to suck it up mostly appears on these forums. I never experienced any player or table telling a DM to do so.
I don't like soccer. No matter how much you might talk abut the "beauty of the game" and "it's constant motion" you are unlikely to MAKE me enjoy it. Therefore, if you want to watch a soccer game, invite someone else. If you want to go to something with me, how abut we BOTH go to something else, a second sport that we both like? That we can enjoy together?
Which is what some of us have been saying all along and still do. If a player(s) and DM can't come to a mutual consensus. Neither should be forced into doing anything. Or playing at the same table.
|
|
No player has ever said that to me. Include Catfolk in the setting even if you say they don't exist. Recently I added a new player who wanted a Gunslinger. I said no and gave my reasons why. He did not ask or demand to be a exception. No accusations of being a tyrant DM. I love how the examples given assume that worst from players.
THx 137ben could not have put it better myself.
|
|
Asked? Bah, impossible! Haven't you been paying attention to this thread? Players never ask anything, they demand. All players are self-entitled whining brats, trying to destroy your delicate special campaign:D
To be fair it does happen. Very very rarely. To be blunt some adults act like overgrown manchildren. It's certainly not the rampant raging epidemic that some in this thread make it out to be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
ITT - a prime example of why the Paizo forums are completely counterindicative of the actual Pathfinder fanbase.
Paizo Forums:
OP: RABBLE RABBLE BLOAT RABBLE!
Poster 1: RABBLE RABBLE O.M.G Overpowered RABBLE!
Poster 2: RABBLE RABBLE Dex to Damage NAO RABBLE!
Poster 3: RABBLE RABBLE Underpowered garbage RABBLE!
Poster 4: RABBLE RABBLE 2nd Edition was simpler RABBLE!
---
Pathfinder Subreddit:
OP: I say, I do believe dragons are the absolute TEETS
Posters 1-76: Mm, yes, quite.
Adaption is easy for a player: paint a vibrant pictures with the colors on your crayon box. The fact that burnt umber is not in the crayon box doesn't prevent you from drawing a vibrant picture with all of the other colors. The other way is "I wanted setting like this as a concept. How can I come close or realize that in your setting?"However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
The GM mostly has all of the control so he will mostly be the one adapting, even if it is allowing the smallest of changes.
That is not to say the player can not adapt, but how he does so is more situational. As an example does the player want the mechanical benefits of ___ or just the concept?
If he just wants the concept, but the mechanics are less important, then finding a way to get the concept without the GM having to lift ban Y is how a player can adapt.
If the player wants mechanical affect ____, but the GM does not like mechanical affect ____, then maybe the GM and player can work to homebrew something that is acceptable to both parties, but once again the GM is bending, at least a little.
Another situational example is a player wanting ____, but _____ in the GM's opinion is not really too powerful, but it might come to early in the game. If ____ can be split up and/or given out as segmental power increases over various levels that might work, but once again it is situational.
The best general advice for a player adapting is to work within what the GM wants to allow. I tend to look at the rules that are given and work within that frame, not build whatever I want and ask the GM to make exceptions against things that are specifically banned.
I wouldn't say it is always easy. It really depends on what the player is trying to accomplish and what rules the GM has that may be in the way, but like I said before I think it is easier for players that work within the rules presented.
Of course there are also players that see the rules, and go outside of them to ensure they are different. I really don't get it, but I know they exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood this as a GM. Why is the campaign that I want to run more important than the campaign that my players want to play in?Yeah, it's a golden plot hook, but it's one for some other campaign than the one you wanted to run.
Yeah, yeah, that's the GM being tyrannical and forcing his story down the player's throats, I know.
But isn't it really the players forcing the GM to accommodate them?
Sometimes you're just not interested in a game about the last catfolk. Maybe somebody else can run that game.
I don't think it is a matter of "importance", but many GM's can't get behind something unless they like it enough. Some playstyles or adventures just don't suit some people.
As an example I can't really run a game where the players expect to trounce every encounter and want to get +5 weapons at level 5. I am not saying it is wrong to like that game, or run it, but that GM won't be me. <----Yes, I met a GM who gave things out like candy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM mostly has all of the control so he will mostly be the one adapting, even if it is allowing the smallest of changes.However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?
I gotta say, I find this a bit amusing. The GM has all the control, so if there is ever a disagreement, HE is the one that has to adapt.
Doesn't SOUND like he has all of the control. :P
Did you really not understand my point, or you just trying to argue semantics. If you didn't I will explain in detail.
Contributor
|
Alright, question about race restrictions: does it help if the player can provide a concept and argue for it?
When planning a Legacy of Fire campaign set in a homebrew world a while back, I asked if iI could play a (slightly reskinned) strix. The GM was going for an Arabian Nights vibe, and one of my favorite cards from M:tG has always been Bird Maiden. So I wanted a brightly-plumed, beautiful dervish. We went back and forth, including some accusations of special-snowflake-dom (and other traditions), but in the end, I successfully made the case for the character being appropriately themed. That campaign is still pending, and I'm not that excited for it for other reasons (the homebrew isn't as much to my liking), but at least I get to play something I'm interested in.
Of course, I almost always have to GM and rarely get to play, so I tend to be very insistent about what I want to play. If I'm only going to play one or two characters in 3-4 years, I want to be fully invested in them... kind of like the GMs who want to be fully invested in their campaign. See - we aren't so different after all! :D
|
|
Is it sort of like the examples which are presuming that gm's are whacking their players across the nose with a rolled up newspaper and saying "bad dog, no biscuit!" When asked why?"And yes, that was an intentionally facetious example. Before someone claims that those exact words weren't used.
Which I and most never said. Their a difference between your example and asking that a DM provide a reason for disallowing something. Your example almost never happens. Players asking DM for a reason for disallowing something at the table. With DM actually giving a reason why and players more often then not accepting the answer.
|
|
Alright, question about race restrictions: does it help if the player can provide a concept and argue for it?
When planning a Legacy of Fire campaign set in a homebrew world a while back, I asked if iI could play a (slightly reskinned) strix. The GM was going for an Arabian Nights vibe, and one of my favorite cards from M:tG has always been Bird Maiden. So I wanted a brightly-plumed, beautiful dervish. We went back and forth, including some accusations of special-snowflake-dom (and other traditions), but in the end, I successfully made the case for the character being appropriately themed. That campaign is still pending, and I'm not that excited for it for other reasons (the homebrew isn't as much to my liking), but at least I get to play something I'm interested in.
Of course, I almost always have to GM and rarely get to play, so I tend to be very insistent about what I want to play. If I'm only going to play one or two characters in 3-4 years, I want to be fully invested in them... kind of like the GMs who want to be fully invested in their campaign. See - we aren't so different after all! :D
For me as a DM unless it was homebrew. I pretty much allow almost any races from the core. Even some 3pp and 3.5. occasionally. The point being made that if in your example your DM refused to allow you to play a Strix. That you would suddenly turn into a unreasoning abusive player who considers the DM a tyrant. Which almost never outside these boards. What usually happens is that it can go either way. A player gets what he wants. The player picks something else because his choice was refused. Or the player leaves the table. Or depending on how much is disagreed upon the DM leaves. If the players and DM have trouble agreeing on what is allowed. Sometimes the DM has to walk away as well.
The who derail started because a few posters were bothered that a player should get a reason for something being disallowed at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, question about race restrictions: does it help if the player can provide a concept and argue for it?
When planning a Legacy of Fire campaign set in a homebrew world a while back, I asked if iI could play a (slightly reskinned) strix. The GM was going for an Arabian Nights vibe, and one of my favorite cards from M:tG has always been Bird Maiden. So I wanted a brightly-plumed, beautiful dervish. We went back and forth, including some accusations of special-snowflake-dom (and other traditions), but in the end, I successfully made the case for the character being appropriately themed. That campaign is still pending, and I'm not that excited for it for other reasons (the homebrew isn't as much to my liking), but at least I get to play something I'm interested in.
Of course, I almost always have to GM and rarely get to play, so I tend to be very insistent about what I want to play. If I'm only going to play one or two characters in 3-4 years, I want to be fully invested in them... kind of like the GMs who want to be fully invested in their campaign. See - we aren't so different after all! :D
So you basically wanted a Strix that looked different? If so I don't see the issue, but this goes back to what I said before, and maybe in the other bloat thread, about some things being trivial to a player that the GM thinks are really important.