and honestly, as I just said, I don't care what the other players thinkThere's no common ground here, then. I DO care what my friends think. If we're all going out to dinner, I don't declare myself the "Restaurant Master" (RM) and unilaterally declare where we're all going to eat, and then reserve the right to veto other peoples' orders -- even if I'm the designated driver (to continue the analogy).
It's the exact same thing if we're playing a game together.
In my opinion it's more case of:
Guy1: For next time we meat I can cook a meal for you. What I have to offer is...(names 10 meals)
Guy2: But I want sushi.
Guy1: I don't make sushi. I don't have to be the one who does the cooking. If you want sushi, one of you has to do it.
Guy2: But I want you to cook.
Guy1: Then take one of the meals I offer.
Analogue
Guy1: For our next game I can be the GM. You can play (names most races and classes)
Guy2: But I want to play a summoner
Guy1: I don't GM for summoners. I don't have to be the GM. If you want to play a summoner one of you has to be the GM.
Guy2: But I want you to GM.
Guy1: Then choose a different class.
Same thing. Why would you force someone to cook a dish he doesn't like or doesn't know how to handle?
If I GM there are some races that will not be allowed. And there are classes that will not be allowed. If one player is adamant to play one of those classes or races I'm not the right GM. Or he is the wrong player. But there don't have to be hard feelings. Just because I might not be the GM this time, I can be next time when the player had a chance to play whatever I will not allow. Or he plays something different now and saves his other idea for next time.
I think a big part of it is that people are really playing in 13th century europe that just happens to have 17th century armor, weapons and castles.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, someone said "reality" to short for "historical accuracy" and all went to hell.
First of, i value suspension of belief in my games, many do. If i'm playing on Golarion, and some player wants to create a Nuclear Physicist from Chicago, i'll ask him why he want's to play with this kind of character - maybe he wants to play something other than a fantasy campaign setting, maybe creating this character is his way to say this.
If he is aware that the campaign is medieval fantasy (or become aware), but still wants to play with a character like this, he obviously have something in mind. So i'll ask him how he plans to fit that kind of character in the proposed campaign. Maybe he has a very cool or crazy idea of how his character ended up on Golarion (consequences of a unusual explosion of a nuclear power plant core, or something the likes). I'll help him to polish the story to better fit the scenario.
If he wants their character story to be too crazy for my taste or for the purpose of the campaign (he wants that his nuclear physicist traveled to Golarion in a nuclear space-ship, still have the vessel in full functionality, and wants all modern gear listed on Reign of Winter, for example). I'll try to convince him otherwise, so his character is balanced with the other and don't brake the game's crunch and fluffy flavors.
If nothing of it helps, i ask him to do another character that better fits the game or seek another gaming table.
It's fine to create unusual things that go out of the way of reality. But the game has a purpose, a suspension of belief.It's the playing of a role that makes sense in the fantasy created that comes the fun. If the player's idea brakes that suspension of belief (I want play a LG Cthullu Anti-paladin who spews spaceships and has Luke Skywalker as an Animal Companion!), the game ends up unconvincing, senseless, having no point. Games like that can be fun for a over the top nonsensical one shot, but not for a campaign.
Guy1: For next time we meat I can cook a meal for you. What I have to offer is...(names 10 meals)
OK, first off, if the "meal" is the PC, then the DM isn't cooking it. The player is. You're telling him not to.
If, on the other hand, the "meal" is the campaign, so far only myself and one (1) other person that I can recall has offered more than one alternative. So this "10 offerings" is an outright lie, if you're trying to represent the majority here. Because most people are in fact saying something a lot more like this: "This is the one meal I am offering. You are expected to being a side dish -- but not whatever you want; I have to approve it. If you don't like any of that, I don't want you here. None of the other guests have a say, either. In fact, the only reason I'm allowing you here at all is that I hate to eat alone."
If you are saying that you, personally, offer 10 different campaign options and only move forward with a game when there's agreement on them, then you and I are in no way arguing here -- we're on exactly the same side. It's the options and the agreement that I'm looking for, not whether every person gets everything they want.
The differences are pretty important, but again, of course people on the DM-is-God camp will, as always, gloss over that.
I think if we're going to keep with the weird food analogy.
the GM decided on a theme for a party, or maybe it was a group effort, it's largely irrelevant as long as all the people joining the party agreed to the theme. Everyone has to bring a dish of food that goes along with this theme. For what ever reason everyone has to try everyone's food. so dishes "should" be made to complement each other, and thus the host (GM) has to make sure your dish qualifies beforehand to make the party a success.
so basically a GM has the right to deny people characters if they will not fit the campaign or the rest of the party. At the very least he has the right to make suggestions.
If everyone wants to play a fighter, there's going to be a bad time if it's an AP or something that expects some higher social stuff happening or for there to be some utility in the party.
on the flip side if someone wants to play a outsider in a low level campaign with low impact objectives, that also might not make much sense.
on the flip side if someone wants to play a outsider in a low level campaign with low impact objectives, that also might not make much sense.Aasimar and Tieflings are outsiders that fit great into low level campaigns.
maybe but they were born on this plain and thus are invested in what happens here, no matter how small.
Random(ish) question relating to setting integrity and whatnot: Does anyone here play in a group where different people run games in the same campaign world? That is, with revolving GMs who detail the world? I haven't lately, but I have in the past.
Of course, I'm one of those GMs who gets bored with my world map every couple of years and redraws it, so my setting integrity bar is set pretty low.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as long as all the people joining the party agreed to the theme.
I think this is the operative statement, and where the disagreement comes in. For my part, I consider "agreement" to include discussion, suggestions, and so on -- where everyone gets a chance to explain what they're looking for. Other people consider "agreement" to mean acceding to what the host has already decided.
Likewise, I think there's an awful lot of disagreement as to what constitutes being appropriate to the "theme." I felt that a desert paladin potentially had a lot to offer to a pirate-themed game, whereas thejeff felt that it was totally inappropriate.
Which again brings us back to what "agreement" means. For many people, the DM says "Not approved! Try again!" and "agreement" means that the player obeys. For others (such as myself), "agreement" means they sit down as a group and discuss the options -- Will the paladin be a disruption, or will he go along with shipboard raids? Are the other players all wanting to play evil black-hearted pirates who keel-haul innocent civilians, or are they just stealing from the really bad guys? Etc.
Random(ish) question relating to setting integrity and whatnot: Does anyone here play in a group where different people run games in the same campaign world? That is, with revolving GMs who detail the world? I haven't lately, but I have in the past.
I've done that, and I absolutely loved it.
I was born here and I sure as hell am not 'invested in what happens here, no matter how small.' And as far as I can tell, I'm pure human.maybe but they were born on this plain and thus are invested in what happens here, no matter how small.on the flip side if someone wants to play a outsider in a low level campaign with low impact objectives, that also might not make much sense.Aasimar and Tieflings are outsiders that fit great into low level campaigns.
so, you don't do your job for cash with intent of gaining money to live? It wasn't meant to be taken entirely literal, but you do interact and make adjustments based on what's happening around you.
Will the paladin be a disruption, or will he go along with shipboard raids? Are the other players all wanting to play evil black-hearted pirates who keel-haul innocent civilians, or are they just stealing from the really bad guys? Etc.Or do the pirates steal at all? As I mentioned upthread 'Pirate' isn't an occupation, it's a 'crime' as designated by governments. Different governments identify crimes differently.
AYE! Pirates referred to themselves as brethren of the coast.
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.
Statistics at hand, Einstein-level genius is around 22 Int.
Keep in mind that true "genius" level is generally classified at 30 Intelligence.Statistics at hand, Einstein-level genius is around 22 Int.
oh, god, we've already been down that road.
I don't have a lot of time, but I just have to say that's not at all what I'm saying. It might be what you're reading, but it's not what I'm writing.Guy1: For next time we meat I can cook a meal for you. What I have to offer is...(names 10 meals)OK, first off, if the "meal" is the PC, then the DM isn't cooking it. The player is. You're telling him not to.
If, on the other hand, the "meal" is the campaign, so far only myself and one (1) other person that I can recall has offered more than one alternative. So this "10 offerings" is an outright lie, if you're trying to represent the majority here. Because most people are in fact saying something a lot more like this: "This is the one meal I am offering. You are expected to being a side dish -- but not whatever you want; I have to approve it. If you don't like any of that, I don't want you here. None of the other guests have a say, either. In fact, the only reason I'm allowing you here at all is that I hate to eat alone."
If you are saying that you, personally, offer 10 different campaign options and only move forward with a game when there's agreement on them, then you and I are in no way arguing here -- we're on exactly the same side. It's the options and the agreement that I'm looking for, not whether every person gets everything they want.
The differences are pretty important, but again, of course people on the DM-is-God camp will, as always, gloss over that.
If a player doesn't like the game the GM has proposed, he can choose not to play.
Emphasis mine.
And also:unless you ignored what I'd proposed for a campaign
See, you keep referring to "what you proposed" in the singular, nor is there any indication of player input there. If I'm misreading that, it's because you're miswriting it.
Guy1: For next time we meat I can cook a meal for you. What I have to offer is...(names 10 meals)OK, first off, if the "meal" is the PC, then the DM isn't cooking it. The player is. You're telling him not to.
If, on the other hand, the "meal" is the campaign, so far only myself and one (1) other person that I can recall has offered more than one alternative. So this "10 offerings" is an outright lie, if you're trying to represent the majority here. Because most people are in fact saying something a lot more like this: "This is the one meal I am offering. You are expected to being a side dish -- but not whatever you want; I have to approve it. If you don't like any of that, I don't want you here. None of the other guests have a say, either. In fact, the only reason I'm allowing you here at all is that I hate to eat alone."
If you are saying that you, personally, offer 10 different campaign options and only move forward with a game when there's agreement on them, then you and I are in no way arguing here -- we're on exactly the same side. It's the options and the agreement that I'm looking for, not whether every person gets everything they want.
The differences are pretty important, but again, of course people on the DM-is-God camp will, as always, gloss over that.
The 10 offerings was a way to say: You have a lot to choose from.
In the last game I GMed I allowed all the races except for the drow noble and the dhampir, and all classes except for the gunslinger and summoner. But about those 4 choices I'm adamant.There are enough other choices and I see it as my right to disallow some options.
And I can't accept your stance that a gm has to agree to everything and that someone who has things he doesn't want at the table should stop DMing.
And I can't accept your stance that a gm has to agree to everything and that someone who has things he doesn't want at the table should stop DMing.
That's more Anzyr's stance, not mine. Please go back an re-read some of my posts.
My stance is that the group as a whole should have input into what things are "appropriate," not just the DM dictating them. I've always said that if one player then bucks the group consensus, then it's the DM's responsibility to NOT agree to that player's request.There are also any number of other potential cases in which a player's request should be denied -- but that should be done on the basis of discussion, with actual reasons, not just "because I said so" or "because my setting purity!" (which is exactly another way of saying "because I said so"). For example, player wants stuff that violates the actual game rules -- that's a pretty clear case (unless of course the rest of the group says, "Hey, that rule is really stupid, can we waive it").
|
|
The GM passes for the ordeal to create a campaign and adventures for it. If the player expect many different campaign options from the GM he is being unrealistic IN THE REAL LIFE.
The ideal thing is, the GM announces his campaign, along with it's theme, house rules, dos and dont's. Player know and understands the GM proposal and board in if they are interested, pass on if they aren't. Simple as that.
If the GM have a group of friends, he speak with them about his idea of new campaign, try to win the hearts of his friends to play it and/or changes to better fit his friends tastes and whims.
But, please DO NOT expect a table full of dishes made of different campaigns form just one GM. You will find it in the messageboards, Conventions and Events (from different GMs, of course).
A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."In my experience the person with that attitude is more accurately an ex-DM, because the players bail for a game with someone who actually respects them as friends/fellow humans, and is willing to run the sort of game they want to play.
This was the post I was refering to.
And I learned that it is better to just ignore Anzyr. Because of that I don't care about his stance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in most cases GMs offer either a couple of choices or run by an idea of what sort of game they want to run.
i.e. We can either do game W with x themes, or game Y with z themes, or someone else can run the game.
OR the GM just knows their core group well enough that they can design a campaign that will make everyone happy.
I think, as in past threads dealing with this topic, most people are not in disagreement, they are just arguing against extreme viewpoints that they are reading into arguments, that might not actually there.
For instance, I could totally see TheJeff's arguments as perfectly valid ONCE a game was decided upon, and a player comes back with a character that they should no based on group consensus won't work.
The GM passes for the ordeal to create a campaign and adventures for it. If the player expect many different campaign options from the GM he is being unrealistic IN THE REAL LIFE.
The ideal thing is, the GM announces his campaign, along with it's theme, house rules, dos and dont's. Player know and understands the GM proposal and board in if they are interested, pass on if they aren't. Simple as that.
If the GM have a group of friends, he speak with them about his idea of new campaign, try to win the hearts of his friends to play it and/or changes to better fit his friends tastes and whims.
But, please DO NOT expect a table full of dishes made of different campaigns form just one GM. You will find it in the messageboards, Conventions and Events (from different GMs, of course).
Ya, this meal metaphor isn't working. Here let me use an actual metaphor for the situation:
Everyone agrees to meet for lunch and hang out. But Jack brings Mexican food, while everyone else brings cheeseburgers. You decide that because you don't like the smell of Mexican food, Jack can't hang out at the lunch meet up. You don't have to eat any of the food Jack brings, you just have hang out in the same vicinity as it. Which is why if the other player's have a problem with Jack bringing Mexican food to the lunch meeting, it's their fault.
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.
I don't agree with the last point at all. But I also don't agree with the metaphor - It only applies if your character has no effect or interaction with my character and doesn't change my experience of the game.
A joky character can ruin a serious mood for the other players. A serious brooding angsty character can dampen a silly game. A character who attacks anything he meets can ruin a low combat diplomatic game.
If you really want to use the food metaphor, you're all bringing ingredients to contribute to the same dish and they all need to work together if it's going to be good.
So... "Who you are" issues, not "what you are issues". I think you may be missing the point.
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.
This keeps getting said, and it is only correct in the broadest, most generous acceptance of the terms.
Just because these concepts are all fictional doesn't mean they all go together, or that the participants at the table are interested in having them go together.
If it is the way you and yours want to play, then yay! You have happy people. That doesn't, however, mean that the rest of us agree with what you keep trying to sell as truth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I learned that it is better to just ignore Anzyr. Because of that I don't care about his stance.
Yeah, that's where we differ all the way down the line. I do listen to the people I'm interacting with, rather than ignore them, and I do care about their stance.
I've said again and again that compromise is good on both sides.
You have indeed, any number of times -- but the only actual example of a DM compromise I recall you giving was to "invite" the player(s) to not participate. So I'm not entirely clear on your definition here.
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.This keeps getting said, and it is only correct in the broadest, most generous acceptance of the terms.
Just because these concepts are all fictional doesn't mean they all go together, or that the participants at the table are interested in having them go together.
If it is the way you and yours want to play, then yay! You have happy people. That doesn't, however, mean that the rest of us agree with what you keep trying to sell as truth.
Would you mind explaining to me then how Numeria and the Technic league makes any less sense in Golarion then let's say dragons? And thus by extension any other high fantasy setting with multiple planes of existence and magic that tells the laws of reality to sit in the corner?
And I learned that it is better to just ignore Anzyr. Because of that I don't care about his stance.Yeah, that's where we differ all the way down the line. I do listen to the people I'm interacting with, rather than ignore them, and I do care about their stance.
I concur.
This was the post I was refering to.A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."In my experience the person with that attitude is more accurately an ex-DM, because the players bail for a game with someone who actually respects them as friends/fellow humans, and is willing to run the sort of game they want to play.
Notice the plural "they" (bolded). When you have a group of 5 people, all five people -- the group as whole -- should have some input into deciding what they want to play. Not any one player, not any one DM. Each individual person can either submit to the group consensus, or bow out. So if we have 4 people interested in one thing, and one person who refuses (per Saldiven's quote I was replying to), the problem is with that one person. Even if that person has declared himself the DM. Because (again, in my experience, there may be conflicting cases) he will soon end up an ex-DM, because he's making it clear that he's running a game for himself alone, and not for any of the other 4 people.
Would you mind explaining to me then how Numeria and the Technic league makes any less sense in Golarion then let's say dragons? And thus by extension any other high fantasy setting with multiple planes of existence and magic that tells the laws of reality to sit in the corner?Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.This keeps getting said, and it is only correct in the broadest, most generous acceptance of the terms.
Just because these concepts are all fictional doesn't mean they all go together, or that the participants at the table are interested in having them go together.
If it is the way you and yours want to play, then yay! You have happy people. That doesn't, however, mean that the rest of us agree with what you keep trying to sell as truth.
I'll give a shot, but we have not had the best success rate with explanations. Let me put in a simple way that might not leave much grey area:
Star Wars is a fantasy (science fiction) setting. This does not, however, mean that just because Golarion and it are both fantasy concepts that they might or even should exist in the same game.
Yes, yes, Gates and spaceships and etc. Still doesn't mean that because you want it that the game has to allow it. Sure, Golarion has a crashed ship. Does that mean that the game must automatically allow every science fiction setting to coexist in the game? Should the GM or other players say OK to Star Trek security teams and Browncoats and space marines and whatever else?
For many of us, the existence of one doesn't open the door to all the others. The existence of the Gate spell doesn't mean that you can just have whatever you want wander into the game and the GM/other players just have to shrug helplessly and let it in.
I always enjoy that stealth insult "enough imagination", as if that is the only consideration involved.
I often think DMs can be dishonest and conflate theme they don't like with mechanics they don't like. I think it's important to explain why you don't wants something in your campaign and work with the player to make a fit. If you don't want a summoner because it doesn't fit with the nature of your campaign, help the player refluff. If you don't want it because of mechanics, explain that, but talk it out with the player.
I have never found it impossible to accommodate a class or character with enough imagination on the part of all parties involved. Also the food analogy is silly; let's end it. It's a collaborative game, why do we need to analogize it to a less similar event?
This. So much this. I find that any concept can be accommodated quite easily in high fantasy settings, with minimal issue.
On the original topic, have we all decided to agree that Fun > Historical Accuracy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The existence of the Gate spell doesn't mean that you can just have whatever you want wander into the game and the GM/other players just have to shrug helplessly and let it in.
I have to agree here. If I think it would be really cool to play R2D2 (I don't, for the record, but just pretend), and the other players gave me that look and all said, "Dude, that's totally lame," it's my responsibility to suck it up and think of something else. And it's the DM's responsibility to say "You heard 'em, Kirth, it's 4-to-1 against."
I'm reminded of a thread here some years back -- the exact details escape me -- where a poster's wife wasn't allowed to play some character at a convention and she absolutely could not play otherwise, because the game just couldn't be fun for her if she was not allowed to do what she wanted.
Fun is a funny thing; what sounds fun to one person could sound like the most horrible thing ever to the others at the table. There comes a point, I think, where one has to decide if pushing for your ultimate fun is more important than the lesser, but still important, fun to be had by playing at all.
Louis CK maybe said it better (NSFW video clip) here
I often think DMs can be dishonest and conflate theme they don't like with mechanics they don't like. I think it's important to explain why you don't want something in your campaign and work with the player to make a fit. If you don't want a summoner because it doesn't fit with the nature of your campaign, help the player refluff. If you don't want it because of mechanics, explain that, but talk it out with the player.
I have never found it impossible to accommodate a class or character with enough imagination on the part of all parties involved. Also the food analogy is silly; let's end it. It's a collaborative game, why do we need to analogize it to a less similar event?
Never assume malice where incompetence will suffice as an reason.
I have seen plenty of DMs who conflate setting integrity, balance, etc. I don't think any of them did it intentionally.