Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 834 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Are paladins cool with land bound robbers as well?

The question for me is whether they're only robbers because the DM tells them they have to be, or they're not allowed to play. Back to the one jerk, vs. the whole table, again.

Anzyr feels each player can override all the others. I disagree.

Most people feel the DM should override all the players at will, and in fact is "cooler" if he does so as arrogantly and as unyieldingly as possible, because you "have to teach them a lesson." I obviously disagree very strongly.

I feel that everyone should be on the same page as the majority, regardless of claimed "status."

Woah woah woah, I think I need to clarify. I feel each player can override all the others in one and only one aspect of the game. And that's what character they are playing. And even that has some limitations. Albeit those limitations are not as previously stated about the character itself very much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Stepping back from particular cases, are you really saying that it's not possible to have incompatible character concepts?

Sure it is. But most often they're not incompatible with the game or the other characters, so much as they're incompatible with what the DM personally pre-imagined. That's not at all the same thing, and I don't think we should pretend it is.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
it's more like if we chose Mexican food went to a Mexican restaurant and someone straight faced ordered some eastern European dish.
Nope. You just told me that YOU chose Mexican food, and you don't give a damn what anyone else in the group wants.
bandw2 wrote:
and honestly, as I just said, I don't care what the other players think of this 1 player's character, if i won't enjoy GMing for it or it makes it harder for me to GM(such as a character who flirts with women a lot, I don't want to RP that), he should play something else.

continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

this isn't about what they ordered, it doesn't effect other players, his choice directly effects what i "eat".


Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.

If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.
I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.

So, in order to let one player have his paladin, everyone else has to play that particular type of pirate.

Isn't that just pushing the restriction in the other direction?

No they can play Pirates. I have no problems with a Paladin hanging out with Pirates. Like I said before I actually treat Paladin players nicely and am not out to make them fall. The code is pretty lax really.

So now it's any pirates. That is a pretty lax version.

Are paladins cool with land bound robbers as well?

I said they could play Pirates. I didn't say they could play any kind of Pirates.

That depends on the land bound robbers. Most Paladins I know get along great with Robin Hood, even if they disagree with his methods.

So the other players do have to play a particular kind of pirate or robber in order to accommodate the paladin.

The restriction goes on them instead of him. Admittedly, it's not a mechanical class or race restriction, but it's still a concept restriction.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'm murdering the paladin in question, so that this doesn't become a paladin thread.

replace paladin with someone who want's to play a "good" character.


Bandw2 wrote:
continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

Who all "agreed" to have Mexican? Didn't you just declare it, and then said that you don't care if anyone doesn't like it? What if Bob is allergic to cilantro?

I keep saying, over and over and over and over, that if the whole group agrees and one player wants to be disruptive, then that player is a jerk. If bob dumps his lo mein in your fajitas, Bob is just being a jerk. But I don't ever see that happen in real life.

But you keeping harping on the "one person being a jerk scenario" -- with which no one in the universe except maybe some of Anzyr's more hyperbolic posts disagrees with -- and ignoring the DM being a dictator scenario, which is what I'm trying to address.


thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.

If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.
I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.

So, in order to let one player have his paladin, everyone else has to play that particular type of pirate.

Isn't that just pushing the restriction in the other direction?

No they can play Pirates. I have no problems with a Paladin hanging out with Pirates. Like I said before I actually treat Paladin players nicely and am not out to make them fall. The code is pretty lax really.

So now it's any pirates. That is a pretty lax version.

Are paladins cool with land bound robbers as well?

I said they could play Pirates. I didn't say they could play any kind of Pirates.

That depends on the land bound robbers. Most Paladins I know get along great with Robin Hood, even if they disagree with his methods.

So the other players do have to play a particular kind of pirate or robber in order to accommodate the paladin.

The restriction goes on them instead of him. Admittedly, it's not a mechanical class or race restriction, but it's still a concept restriction.

They just can't play Evil pirates. Now, if the campaign was going to be an Evil campaign, then yes, the player who shows up with a Paladin is incompatible (unless they are playing a fallen one). Again though, that's not a "what you are" issue. It's a "who you are" issue.

Bandw2 wrote:

i'm murdering the paladin in question, so that this doesn't become a paladin thread.

replace paladin with someone who want's to play a "good" character.

Even easier. Unless you are playing in an "Evil" campaign. And even then it can be fun. Once again comes down to "who you are" not "what you are".


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Weirdo wrote:


On the other hand, the same game has a grippli PC who resulted from a unique magical curse rather than being a member of a species of frog-men, so not everything weird is automatically out.

PF involves group storytelling and that means compromise.

So i got turned into a frog, and then kissed by this girl who said she was a princess, but it turns out she was only a dutchess so... 3/4 of the way there i suppose...

You're only kneedeep towards being human? ;-)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Stepping back from particular cases, are you really saying that it's not possible to have incompatible character concepts?

Sure it is. But most often they're not incompatible with the game or the other characters, so much as they're incompatible with what the DM personally pre-imagined. That's not at all the same thing, and I don't think we should pretend it is.

And that is not at all my experience.

Nor do I think it's that important of a distinction. Everyone has the same right to not play. If a player doesn't like the game the GM has proposed, he can choose not to play. If the GM doesn't like the characters proposed, he doesn't have to run for some or all players. That might leave him without a game. Obviously, it's better to discuss and compromise and find a solution everyone is happen with. Starting with the stance that a GM must run for any characters his players bring is no better way of reaching that compromise than assuming the GM's concept is inviolable.


thejeff wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Stepping back from particular cases, are you really saying that it's not possible to have incompatible character concepts?

Sure it is. But most often they're not incompatible with the game or the other characters, so much as they're incompatible with what the DM personally pre-imagined. That's not at all the same thing, and I don't think we should pretend it is.

And that is not at all my experience.

Nor do I think it's that important of a distinction. Everyone has the same right to not play. If a player doesn't like the game the GM has proposed, he can choose not to play. If the GM doesn't like the characters proposed, he doesn't have to run for some or all players. That might leave him without a game. Obviously, it's better to discuss and compromise and find a solution everyone is happen with. Starting with the stance that a GM must run for any characters his players bring is no better way of reaching that compromise than assuming the GM's concept is inviolable.

See I never have this problem. I simply run a campaign instead of the GM in those cases. Eventually, people catch on that people like my campaigns, because again, I try to be the kind of GM I would want to play under.


thejeff wrote:
Nor do I think it's that important of a distinction.

That's why we have no common ground here -- I think it is an essential distinction.

thejeff wrote:
Starting with the stance that a GM must run for any characters his players bring is no better way of reaching that compromise than assuming the GM's concept is inviolable.

That's exactly what you're doing, though -- assuming the DM's concept is inviolable. "If you don't like it, don't play, but I'm sure as hell not going to listen to a bunch of lowly players when they tell me what kind of game they're interested in." That is NOT in any definition of the word a "compromise" (nor is Anzyr's way, as I've already agreed a zillion+ times, so quit it with the "one jerk player" thing). A compromise is when everyone gets heard, and everyone (including Mr oh-so-important DM) might have to give a little.

Maybe "my-way-or-don't-play" DMing works if for some reason you're living in Hicksville where everyone else at the table is too inbred to run a game, but here in Houston, it leaves you an ex-DM, because everyone bails when you refuse to listen to them.


Bandw2 wrote:
remember when this thread was about historical accuracy?

No, my memory doesn't go back that far. :-(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
remember when this thread was about historical accuracy?
No, my memory doesn't go back that far. :-(

I see your age is catching up to you Doc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

Who all "agreed" to have Mexican? Didn't you just declare it, and then said that you don't care if anyone doesn't like it? What if Bob is allergic to cilantro?

generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

If then later someones playing a character I don't want to RP against, such as someone being a Drow in varisia, then I tell him no. Sure it can happen but I don't want to RP every commoner or shopkeep reacting to the Drow.

P.S. I picked a tame example so that we can keep the discussion centered. if they disguised themself or RP were famous in the region for not being a dick or something, then I'd probably be okay with it. i'm talkign a drow drow.


Bandw2 wrote:
generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

Now we're talking! That's awesome -- it's exactly the scenario in which everyone actually DOES agree on Mexican. To me, that's as close to ideal as it gets. If Bob wants to ruin it by dumping lo mein in the fajitas, just to be a jerk -- then Bob is just being a jerk, plain and simple. My guess would be that you don't have to kick him out, because the other players will do it for you!

But that's not at all what Saldiven and thejeff and others seem to be saying -- the scenario in which the DM has the "right" to declare Mexican for everyone, and their one and only "right" is to not participate.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

Who all "agreed" to have Mexican? Didn't you just declare it, and then said that you don't care if anyone doesn't like it? What if Bob is allergic to cilantro?

generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

If then later someones playing a character I don't want to RP against, such as someone being a Drow in varisia, then I tell him no. Sure it can happen but I don't want to RP every commoner or shopkeep reacting to the Drow.

P.S. I picked a tame example so that we can keep the discussion centered. if they disguised themself or RP were famous in the region for not being a dick or something, then I'd probably be okay with it. i'm talkign a drow drow.

So a "Who you are" not a "What you are" issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For a slightly different perspective:
Warhammer 40K. Not realistic in the slightest. Automatic weapons, artillery, radios and flight trump swords and sexy armor everytime.

And I still played a hell of a lot of 40K. A ridiculous amount. Because it is a FANTASY Game. Not even in the same zip code as reality.

But, when I explored Flames of War, I could not tolerate what I perceived as historical inaccuracies. M1 Garands that fired slower, but more accurately than the more commonplace Bolt Action weapons of the day (Enfield, Mauser...). Medium (.30cal) Machine Guns that OUTRANGED Heavy MGs (.50cal) At these simple, egregious, errors I stopped wanting to play the game at all. Why? Because it was made to reflect our history, and it (in my opinion) failed to do so on a fundamental level.

TL:DR, if it's fantasy, forget reality. If it's historicals, pray it aint too far off of your perceptions :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

Who all "agreed" to have Mexican? Didn't you just declare it, and then said that you don't care if anyone doesn't like it? What if Bob is allergic to cilantro?

generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

If then later someones playing a character I don't want to RP against, such as someone being a Drow in varisia, then I tell him no. Sure it can happen but I don't want to RP every commoner or shopkeep reacting to the Drow.

P.S. I picked a tame example so that we can keep the discussion centered. if they disguised themself or RP were famous in the region for not being a dick or something, then I'd probably be okay with it. i'm talkign a drow drow.

So a "Who you are" not a "What you are" issue.

It's because that jerk Bob took all the hot sauce for his crazy Lo Mein, he's one of those people that put hot sauce on EVERYTHING...and I had to use the soy that came along.

ugh.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
he's one of those people that put hot sauce on EVERYTHING...

Yeah, that would be me. Mrs Gersen accuses me of putting hot sauce on ice cream.

Spoiler:
I had to admit that I don't eat ice cream because it's not good with hot sauce.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given how many flavors of ice cream there are, I find it impossible that there is not a variety that's good with hot sauce.

Gourmands, kindly step up and give the Lord of Kirthfinder some culinary help here.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

Now we're talking! That's awesome -- it's exactly the scenario in which everyone actually DOES agree on Mexican. To me, that's as close to ideal as it gets. If Bob wants to ruin it by dumping lo mein in the fajitas, just to be a jerk -- then Bob is just being a jerk, plain and simple. My guess would be that you don't have to kick him out, because the other players will do it for you!

But that's not at all what thejeff and others seem to be saying -- the scenario in which the DM has the "right" to declare Mexican for everyone, and their one and only "right" is to not participate.

i'm more talking about when people thought there was some chinese mixed in with the mexican or didn't know that the AP doesn't go well with hot sauce("i wana slay dragons""uuuugghhh... it's called giantslayer...""dragons are big") or have been having mexican for a few months and want to be a serial killer...

some things the gm can just say no on


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
continuing the analogy, actually, we agreed to have Mexican but because someone wants Chinese food, I HAD to have Chinese food with my Mexican food.

Who all "agreed" to have Mexican? Didn't you just declare it, and then said that you don't care if anyone doesn't like it? What if Bob is allergic to cilantro?

generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

If then later someones playing a character I don't want to RP against, such as someone being a Drow in varisia, then I tell him no. Sure it can happen but I don't want to RP every commoner or shopkeep reacting to the Drow.

P.S. I picked a tame example so that we can keep the discussion centered. if they disguised themself or RP were famous in the region for not being a dick or something, then I'd probably be okay with it. i'm talkign a drow drow.

So a "Who you are" not a "What you are" issue.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
FireberdGNOME wrote:

For a slightly different perspective:

Warhammer 40K. Not realistic in the slightest. Automatic weapons, artillery, radios and flight trump swords and sexy armor everytime.

EXCEPT guns use ammo, and you're going to need A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of ammo to deal with everything in WH40k


Bandw2 wrote:
some things the gm can just say no on

As long as they're open to discussion on it, I'm not seeing the issue with trying to persuade Bob to see it your way. "Hey, man, a drow is really gonna cause some headaches here, can you cut me a break?" -- I haven't played with anyone in the last couple of decades who would say no.

That's a very long way from "drow don't exist because I don't want them to and you're not allowed to play them. Stop trying to ruin my fun and pick something else, or else I'm throwing you out!"

Thejeff claims they're pretty much the same thing, but, again, I disagree.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
generally when asking what to GM for the group I put forward a concept and a few APs and then don't vote on any of it and let them decide.

Now we're talking! That's awesome -- it's exactly the scenario in which everyone actually DOES agree on Mexican. To me, that's as close to ideal as it gets. If Bob wants to ruin it by dumping lo mein in the fajitas, just to be a jerk -- then Bob is just being a jerk, plain and simple. My guess would be that you don't have to kick him out, because the other players will do it for you!

But that's not at all what Saldiven and thejeff and others seem to be saying -- the scenario in which the DM has the "right" to declare Mexican for everyone, and their one and only "right" is to not participate.

How is Bob being a jerk by Bringing His Own beer/noodles while enjoying the evening with all his buddies?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
some things the gm can just say no on
As long as they're open to discussion on it, I'm not seeing the issue with trying to persuade Bob to see it your way. "Hey, man, a drow is really gonna cause some headaches here, can you cut me a break?" -- I haven't played with anyone in the last couple of decades who would say no.

I did mention the guy wanting to play a burrowing scavenger right? he left because I said no and he should probably play something with arms and that wants equipment.

i'm not joking this actually happened.

he came back later and played a farmer later because he said I only allowed "normal" things. or some such. that player is a handful, some like 4-5 months later we finally made middle ground by him being a tiny fae riding a corgi. he's a cavalier.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
How is Bob being a jerk by Bringing His Own beer/noodles while enjoying the evening with all his buddies?

He's not, unless he gets his noodles in everyone else's fajitas. Also, most restaurants won't let you bring your own food in. So, yeah, it can be a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
I did mention the guy wanting to play a burrowing scavenger right? he left because I said no and he should probably play something with arms and that wants equipment.

(shrug) I would have let him try it (subject to the rest of the table's agreement), and seen whether it was really all that disruptive.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
I did mention the guy wanting to play a burrowing scavenger right? he left because I said no and he should probably play something with arms and that wants equipment.
(shrug) I would have let him try it (subject to the rest of the table's agreement), and seen whether it was really all that disruptive.

once again, this isn't about disruption, this is me not wanting to have to deal with it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
How is Bob being a jerk by Bringing His Own beer/noodles while enjoying the evening with all his buddies?
He's not, unless he gets his noodles in everyone else's fajitas. Also, most restaurants won't let you bring your own food in. So, yeah, it can be a problem.

Heh, I've totally walked right into seafood restaurants with a bag of food from a burgerjoint and sat with family who were patronizing the restaurant with no problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We differ on that point, then: if I'm going to put in the effort of DMing a campaign, I go all out. "I don't feel like dealing with it" is never an answer I like to give more than once, and I'd always feel bad about doing so. YMMV.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Heh, I've totally walked right into seafood restaurants with a bag of food from a burgerjoint and sat with family who were patronizing the restaurant with no problem.

Mrs Gersen and I were at a table outside a coffee shop once; she was drinking one of their $9 barista-frappeed chick drinks, and I was eating a burger I'd bought next door. The manager came out in a huff and made us both leave. Mrs Gersen told him, "I prefer to patronize smaller businesses like this one, but if you're determined to tell me to give my money to Starbuck's instead, then so be it." She never went back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
We differ on that point, then: if I'm going to put in the effort of DMing a campaign, I go all out. "I don't feel like dealing with it" is never an answer I like to give more than once, and I'd always feel bad about doing so. YMMV.

I would too probably, but generally I know that I'm having more fun overall because of it, and the party is generally staying on task as well.

to be clear my current group:
as mentioned a small Fae cavalier riding a corgi (undersized mount feat)
an advanced race I worked with a player on, wizard.
A human brawler
A human Magus
and a Oreed Zenarcher.

So generally it has to be out there for me not to feel like dealing with it.


Makes sense to me. I don't think you and I fundamentally disagree at all, Bandw2. It seems we both disagree with the "DM's only responsibility is to show the players who's boss" people.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
some things the gm can just say no on

As long as they're open to discussion on it, I'm not seeing the issue with trying to persuade Bob to see it your way. "Hey, man, a drow is really gonna cause some headaches here, can you cut me a break?" -- I haven't played with anyone in the last couple of decades who would say no.

That's a very long way from "drow don't exist because I don't want them to and you're not allowed to play them. Stop trying to ruin my fun and pick something else, or else I'm throwing you out!"

Thejeff claims they're pretty much the same thing, but, again, I disagree.

I don't claim those are the same. I claim that "I'm going to play a drow and you're a bad GM if you don't let me." is pretty much the same as "You're not allowed to play a Drow."

Remember that this particular go around on this topic started with Anzyr's stance that he didn't have to compromise and a GM who didn't let him play a bow tied pony alchemist regardless was a bad GM.

I do think a GM should compromise. I also think players should compromise. Most of the time that's going to solve the problem. I was trying to focus on cases where it wasn't possible not because I think GMs shouldn't compromise, but because there wasn't even agreement that there could ever be a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Remember that this particular go around on this topic started with Anzyr's stance that he didn't have to compromise and a GM who didn't let him play a bow tied pony alchemist regardless was a bad GM.

I'm not Anzyr. But if I showed up at your table and you jumped on anything I presented with both boots because you were afraid I might be Anzyr -- then, yes, I'd definitely exercise my right to not play.

thejeff wrote:
I do think a GM should compromise.

Again, "obey me or don't play" is not in any way a "compromise."

thejeff wrote:
I also think players should compromise.

As do I. In fact, I think I've tried to make that clear in every post.

thejeff wrote:
I was trying to focus on cases where it wasn't possible not because I think GMs shouldn't compromise, but because there wasn't even agreement that there could ever be a problem.

It's always possible, if the participants have even a modicum of respect for one another. If they don't, they shouldn't be playing together -- but that's very much an interpersonal thing, not a game role responsibility thing.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their replies. Please be civil to each other, there's no need for insults. Let's return this to the original topic, thanks!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Remember that this particular go around on this topic started with Anzyr's stance that he didn't have to compromise and a GM who didn't let him play a bow tied pony alchemist regardless was a bad GM.

I'm not Anzyr. But if I showed up at your table and you jumped on anything I presented with both boots because you were afraid I might be Anzyr -- then, yes, I'd definitely exercise my right to not play.

Which I absolutely wouldn't do, unless you ignored what I'd proposed for a campaign and insisted on no changes to your concept.
Quote:


thejeff wrote:
I do think a GM should compromise.
Again, "obey me or don't play" is not in any way a "compromise."
You're right. Luckily, that's not my intention.
Quote:

thejeff wrote:
I also think players should compromise.

As do I. In fact, I think I've tried to make that clear in every post.

thejeff wrote:
I was trying to focus on cases where it wasn't possible not because I think GMs shouldn't compromise, but because there wasn't even agreement that there could ever be a problem.
It's always possible, if the participants have even a modicum of respect for one another. If they don't, they shouldn't be playing together -- but that's very much an interpersonal thing, not a game role responsibility thing.

Or they're looking for different things from the game. They may respect each other but have different tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Which I absolutely wouldn't do, unless you ignored what I'd proposed for a campaign and insisted on no changes to your concept.

It wouldn't get that far -- if you'd previously ignored my input and insisted on "proposing" a campaign that didn't allow for what the players wanted, I'd have already left the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Compromise should be a two way street where players and GM meet somewhere in the middle. If there is a constant threat on both sides of "Do this or I won't play!", then maybe people should be sitting down and talking about why they cannot get along, game aside.

I've had players walk off from a game in a huff because I wouldn't meet all the "requirements" that they had for the game. I've said it before: I'm willing to bend, but I am not bending over. If that makes a player walk, then so be it. We'll go on without them -- maybe with the dreaded GMPC! -- and whatever the problem is goes away.

Similarly, I've folded up the screen and ceded the chair to someone else when the players at the table were so undecided and argumentative that we'd wasted an hour complaining about what to play, what someone else was going to play, and why can't I be a sentient ooze in this game you big meanie! Someone else can run the Wild Weird World of Wonder and I'll happily play, or go home or do something else.

If I've prepared for a game, as a player or GM, and then people start off on strange avenues that have nothing to do with what we've decided, I usually get annoyed. We talked about playing X or possibly Y. If we are going to play Q, someone could have sent a text, email, phone call, smoke signals or otherwise discussed such beforehand.

These things, along with any sort of sticking with historical accuracy, should be discussed at the beginning of the game. It stops a great deal of bickering down the road and let's people know what to expect before they bring their sentient ooze to a historically accurate Musketeers game, or the GM doesn't prepare a pirate game for people that want to roam the polar ice caps hunting downed space ships.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
remember when this thread was about historical accuracy?
No, my memory doesn't go back that far. :-(
I see your age is catching up to you Doc.

Get off my lawn!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

DrDeth beat me to the punch. Ah well, carry on!

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
But that's not at all what thejeff and others seem to be saying -- the scenario in which the DM has the "right" to declare Mexican for everyone, and their one and only "right" is to not participate.

I don't know if you mean to include me in "others," but that's definitely not what I'm saying. I have tried to emphasize the importance of conversation and compromise in how I approach this issue both as a GM and as a player.

Anzyr wrote:
My DM policy is simple and true to the above. I always make sure that I am the kind of DM I would want to play under. And the kind of DM I want to play under lets me play the character I want to play regardless of what they think of it.

And I try to be the kind of player I would want to GM for. And that means being willing to compromise about a character concept that is going to require a lot of work on the GM's part to mesh with the rest of the campaign.

My friends switch off the GM role, and sometimes run two campaigns at a time on different days or alternate weeks. That means that no one has a monopoly on the game, and a willingness to compromise in one context means that others are more willing to compromise with you later - or just plain invite you back. There's no shortage of either GMs or players so no one feels a need to play with a jerk.

How this works:

Me: I'd like to run a game with steam-age technology in a city dominated by an oppressive aristocracy.
Red: Sounds cool. Can I play a wizard detective with a pistol?
Me: The oppressive aristocracy has forbidden commoners to study wizardry or own firearms. Are you OK with being a nobleman?
Red: Well, I'd pictured the character as a down on his luck film noir type. Can he reject his aristocratic privilege and work for democratic reform?
Me: Sure! What house would you like to be from?
Red: Well, his conflict with the nobility will be more interesting if he's from a prominent family. And he's estranged from his noble wife...

Later:

Red: I'd like to run a high fantasy age of exploration wuxia game.
Me: You had me at "I'd like to run." Can I play that warforged mystic theurge that was my backup idea from last campaign?
Red: Technology is going to be limited in very specific ways - constructed humanoids don't fit.
Me: Cool, I'll save it for that high-tech game Blue is working on. What about a monk/bloodrager? I've wanted to play a mystical martial artist for a while.
Red: Great! What do you think about this hermit NPC as your character's mentor...

Result: two great campaigns, two of the more memorable characters either of us has played.

Note that I gave up the warforged not because the GM was being dictatorial, but because playing that particular character in that particular game wasn't worth the effort of trying to adapt a character who'd end up being a freak in the setting.

Conversely, the frog man was perfectly happy to be a freak (and the GM was perfectly happy working it into the game's theme of divine interference).

Anzyr wrote:
In some kinds of games "mechahitler" would be a no. The mechanics you use to play your take on "mechahitler" should always be allowed though. It's not a "what your character is" issue its a "who your character is" issue.

Are you advocating refluffing problematic characters? Because I'm totally on board with that. Recall my previous recommendation that someone wanting to play a kitsune in a wild west campaign be a "coyotefolk" instead.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

WHY ARE ALL YOUR FRIENDS NAMED AFTER COLORS?[/joke]


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth beat me to the punch. Ah well, carry on!

Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time.

;-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Something something early bird and worms.


knightnday wrote:

Compromise should be a two way street where players and GM meet somewhere in the middle. If there is a constant threat on both sides of "Do this or I won't play!", then maybe people should be sitting down and talking about why they cannot get along, game aside.

I've had players walk off from a game in a huff because I wouldn't meet all the "requirements" that they had for the game. I've said it before: I'm willing to bend, but I am not bending over. If that makes a player walk, then so be it. We'll go on without them -- maybe with the dreaded GMPC! -- and whatever the problem is goes away.

Similarly, I've folded up the screen and ceded the chair to someone else when the players at the table were so undecided and argumentative that we'd wasted an hour complaining about what to play, what someone else was going to play, and why can't I be a sentient ooze in this game you big meanie! Someone else can run the Wild Weird World of Wonder and I'll happily play, or go home or do something else.

If I've prepared for a game, as a player or GM, and then people start off on strange avenues that have nothing to do with what we've decided, I usually get annoyed. We talked about playing X or possibly Y. If we are going to play Q, someone could have sent a text, email, phone call, smoke signals or otherwise discussed such beforehand.

These things, along with any sort of sticking with historical accuracy, should be discussed at the beginning of the game. It stops a great deal of bickering down the road and let's people know what to expect before they bring their sentient ooze to a historically accurate Musketeers game, or the GM doesn't prepare a pirate game for people that want to roam the polar ice caps hunting downed space ships.

I agree to a point. The problem is that a lot of GMing is experience and judgement calls.

For example:
- Player wants to play a high charisma skill monkey and try out non-combat options to situations. If the campaign is set up to be a combat heavy human vs orcs deathmatch I might warn them away from it, but I wouldn't forbid it.
- The same player wants to use their charisma and skills to be the groups Casanova and sleep with anything that moves. Sure, go for it.
- The player wants me, the GM, to heavily RP the objects of his affections. Here is a nice big glass of nope for you. In my experience as a GM, this kind of RP has been extremely awkward for both the other players and the GM and disruptive in every game I have seen it in. I am making a judgement call on what I think is best for the group as a whole.

Another example was that I had a GM who had completely forbidden player vs player fighting because of some bad experiences with it in past campaigns. He was making a judgement call and I can respect that. My only real gripe was that I was not informed of the rule before the campaign started.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
WHY ARE ALL YOUR FRIENDS NAMED AFTER COLORS?[/joke]

It's possible they're power rangers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so since this thread seems to have spun off into a Tyrant GM vs Entitled Player argument, let me get it back on track...

In a great many historical cultures, undead were not considered universally (or even 'usually') evil. Hence, if your game world contains a society or region based on a real-world culture in which undead were not viewed as evil, then it is not historically accurate to have undead be always (or even usually) evil in those regions. In a setting like Golarion, where each region corresponds to a region in the real world, undead from regions which believed in primarily evil undead should be primarily evil, while undead from other regions should be neutral or good. To do otherwise (as Paizo has done) is not historically accurate.

Actually, the alignment system as a whole primarily makes sense in the context of a Judeo-Christian-like morality structure, which is certainly not universal to all cultures in history. Unless every society in your campaign world is based on a society which consisted primarily of Jews and members of descendent religions, then using alignment as a universal factor of your campaign is not historically accurate.

There, now people can argue about alignment instead:)


gnrrrg wrote:

My problem with gunslingers isn't about when gunpowder was invented, but rather I play hack and slash type games to get away from gun use. I'm pretty sure that there are spells out there that can effectively mimic gunfire anyhow, so why drag guns into it?

What I find interesting about players wanting to play gunslingers in pathfinder is that those same people often play melee guys in shadowrun.

So in the core of it all they just want to be different.

501 to 550 of 834 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.