Starchaser
 member, 831 posts
 Shoda mo tsumoreba taibok
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 12:48
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
I've always liked being a GM to being a zookeeper at a zoo, except every animal is a rabid honey badger and all the cages are unlocked. If you're willing to GM just accept that "your vision" of how things are supposed to be is doomed before the first die rolls.


I like that analogy.

The thing is, though, whilst players should be free to do what the hell they want with their characters, that has to be within the confines of the plot and setting of the GM. If I were to run a game where, say, everyone was a normal human I wouldn't expect somebody to play a mutated zombie ogre with superpowers.


bigbadron:
Or you could do whatever you can to minimise that risk.  Seriously, why GM a game that you don't enjoy?


Exactly. And I've tried to have this conversation with players before. Unfortunately, there are a few out there that think GMs only run games to entertain the players and not care about enjoying it themselves.
Jarodemo
 member, 910 posts
 My hovercraft
 is full of eels
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 14:41
Re: So close
As a GM you have a vision of what your game is going to look like. If it is a homebrew world, even more so. I am playing in a 5e game where all players are halflings. There were a few other minor constraints, but the halfling only rule was absolute. So, if I fancied being a Goliath cleric then I could take my idea elsewhere. The game is now well established with a great party of halflings with a range of classes, and it works really well in that setting.

I have had a idea for a 5e game in my own homebrew world, but not yet launched it. The party will be an army unit, so all PCs will be fighters, barbarians, rogues or spell-less variant rangers, with one cleric allowed as the party medic. Also, all PCs will be human. At game launch this is non-negotiable. That isnít to say that as the game develops I may allow new or replacement PCs from different background, but at the start it will be just the army squad. Now some players may think that this idea is great, and will apply according to my guidelines. Others will think it is a rubbish idea, and they are free to think that and move on to the next game advert. But anyone applying to the game wanting to be a kenku sorcerer or genasi warlock is going to be immediately rejected. Iím not trying to make an Everyman game, but one that I want to run and hopefully that a small group of players wants to play.

Ultimately if I donít enjoy GMing my own game then it dies. It a player drops then that is frustrating, but I can continue without them and/or replace them.
evileeyore
 member, 439 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 20:45
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
The GM is supposed to adapt to the players.

Ahahaha, no.

If the direction the Players want to go looks like it'll be more (or at least the same amount of) fun and no (or not too much) more work than I already had planned, that's one thing, but I'm not beholden to it nor are the Players entitled to my time.
Draegnoth
 member, 46 posts
 Been playing for 25 years
 Can fill any role
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 21:20
Re: So close
I thoroughly disagree with many of you. I know the GM is not a slave but they have to Undercommon when taking on the role that they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained. By session 3 its gone off in the weeds with a bunch of violent psychopaths.

I'm not saying they do it to be jerks or out of malicious intent. They will simply come up with ideas that boggle the mind compared to even the most simple and straightforward scenarios you present.

If a GM were so heavy handed in my games that they railroaded the story in the direction they want I'd rage quit in an instant. I'm just venting here. Make me out to be the bad guy if you want, I don't care. Just know that I think the same think of inflexible GMs.
RanzarthPhx
 member, 45 posts
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 21:22
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
Of course I want to play a game I can have fun in. Why bother otherwise? The GM is supposed to adapt to the players.


This comes across as overly selfish. As you, the player, enjoyment ranks higher then the GM's enjoyment.


The GM in my opinion, sets the boundaries for which the players can play in. They set the world. Fortunately the game system they have chosen sets many of these boundaries, but they can set a couple others. Examples and reasons given above. The boundaries need to be expansive enough to allow the players some freedom but not so expansive it'll take any enjoyment away from the GM. And the GM doesn't need to explain why they have set said boundaries any more than a player has to explain why they don't want to play in their game.
MrKinister
 member, 105 posts
Wed 20 Jan 2021
at 21:35
Re: So close
Interesting ideas on both ends.

I have to add that I think it is a compromise. Ideally, everyone's in agreement on what they want to get out of it. The GM has his/her reasons to run, and each player has their reasons to want to play.

I know that everyone will want something in particular out of it, but the GM does put in the most amount of work into the game and does deserve some consideration.

But, at the same time, if it is the GM's intention to make the game fun, they ought to pay a bit of attention to the goals and preferences of their players, in so far as it fits into their game or can be adapted to.

This is supposed to be people getting together and having some fun. If something breaks down, then talking about it will help.

Of course, not all games are good for all player preferences: your axe-wielding hack-and-slasher does not make a good fit for a political game, and so on.

I don't believe neither the GM nor the Players can place themselves at the forefront of all considerations. That will break down into conflict quickly.

And that's assuming the GM and the players are mature individuals who are willing to discuss their differences and preferences and adapt if possible, or gracefully bow out when needed.

I had one player quit on me because I ran a group of traditional monsters as civilized and nuanced creatures, with self-determination and intelligence. They thought they should be brutal savages, as is quite often how they are portrayed. It strikes me they didn't like that. Go figure. =)
evileeyore
 member, 440 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 00:15
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
I thoroughly disagree with many of you. I know the GM is not a slave but they have to Undercommon when taking on the role that they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained.

Yeah, we differ intrinsically.

quote:
By session 3 its gone off in the weeds with a bunch of violent psychopaths.

I've never had that experience as a GM.  If a Player tries to derail an "on rails game"*, they get two polite discussions in private, and if they continue trying, they get booted.  I've never had more than one Player be a problem in a group.

I'm sure it can happen, but that's a problem with a built in solution.

* If it's a sandbox game and they're trying to derail what the other Players are trying to accomplish or set up, see above.  Though this happens less frequently in a sandbox game because the inherent freedom often causes those types of Players to play more in the group, than against it.

quote:
They will simply come up with ideas that boggle the mind compared to even the most simple and straightforward scenarios you present.

I've never had that problem.  Some ideas will work, some will fail.  That's the way of it.

quote:
If a GM were so heavy handed in my games that they railroaded the story in the direction they want I'd rage quit in an instant.

See, I just don't sign on to a railroad games unless I want a railroad game (same with sandboxes, sometimes I want the peace of mind of having a nice coach to retire to and not have to think to hard while the train keeps on rolling).  And if I'm running a railroad, I advertise it upfront, and what the setting and premise is, that helps set Players expectations before they even RTJ.
Draegnoth
 member, 47 posts
 Been playing for 25 years
 Can fill any role
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 00:32
Re: So close
Maybe my problem is that I've gamed with selfish morons and have grown used to it. The one other person in my local gaming group who is a reasonable and rational human being feels the same way. But they're all we have in this small rural area so its game with them or don't game at all. For the last 2 years its been don't game at all. Thats why I'm online now.
Dirigible
 member, 233 posts
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 01:43
Re: So close
quote:
I thoroughly disagree with many of you. I know the GM is not a slave but they have to Undercommon when taking on the role that they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained. By session 3 its gone off in the weeds with a bunch of violent psychopaths.


You seem to be talking about two different things. You started the thread talking about overly limiting race/class/whatever limitation in character creation. That's a very different thing than story flexibility, reactivity and railroading. You even admit here that the GM is in charge of the 'initial explanation of the story', which surely includes defining the character options available.
facemaker329
 member, 7305 posts
 Gaming for over 40
 years, and counting!
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 03:23
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
...they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained...


Two points here...

A--Yes, they are.  The story may take some unexpected twists and turns, but they are still the narrator of the story and the creator/interpreter of the world in which the story is happening.  Even if the party ends up somewhere way out in left field, the GM is still the one telling everyone what's out there.  Just because they aren't demanding that the party proceed directly from first to second to third doesn't mean they aren't in charge.

B--A lot of GMs have probably experienced something like that...which may be why they're so selective about the characters they allow.  They've seen too many of 'those types' show up playing those kinds of characters, so disallowing is their first step in screening out the undesirables.

Basically, it comes down to this (I've said it before, and I know I'll end up saying it again)--if a GM has something in the makeup of their game that you find objectionable, it's probably a pretty good sign that you and the GM have some fundamental differences in your expectations of the game...which is generally my first big clue that it's time to keep looking for another game.
evileeyore
 member, 441 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 07:18
Re: So close
facemaker329:
Basically, it comes down to this (I've said it before, and I know I'll end up saying it again)--if a GM has something in the makeup of their game that you find objectionable, it's probably a pretty good sign that you and the GM have some fundamental differences in your expectations of the game...which is generally my first big clue that it's time to keep looking for another game.

Exactly, and it doesn't even have to be rules.  I've skipped out on applying for decent looking games over "silly" things like the GM's preferred font choices, length of character background, and posting rates.

There are tons of games in the sea (especially if you actually somehow manage to enjoy D&D), so just toss back the ones that don't align with your preferences and check out the next one.
praguepride
 member, 1744 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 16:24
Re: So close
There is a table for everyone but not everyone fits at every table. I consider myself a pretty reasonable GM but I have absolutely driven players away because what I thought were some helpful tweaks butted up against their ideas resulting in a big confrontation.

Even two perfectly calm and competent gamers might clash for whatever reason and at some point it is no longer fun to play together and the best solution is to walk away.

I've had players drop my games because they didn't like my style and then come back a year later because that conflict was water under the bridge and since then I've become a better GM and they've become a better player and we're able to move past the issues that stopped us in the first place.
donsr
 member, 2163 posts
Thu 21 Jan 2021
at 16:45
Re: So close
 in the end?  Not all games  are made for everyone. Mine aren't..i don't try to make them that way. I want players  who  ...LIKE.. the settings, the RP ect ect..i don't want to 'brobe folks to play'.

 Players  who invest themselves in the game, make the game  richer.

Like Evil says?... I went   through a few games that has a set color  for posting this  and another for posting that.. and thought bubbles  ect ect. That's nuts. we use  what ever color for  the characters  want to use  for thier speech, because none of them will be posting in the same post.

 there is  a Game i can barely stay in, but i have been there for years so  i feel i must try to help keep it alive... The GM there is super anal  about CS??? really?..last year we lost at elast 4 players, ebcaus eof the CS stuff and  the GM  would say "  so-so has left, because  he/she was rude"

 i even made an OC post saying 'let them post! you're a GM you can work around the CS as we play!..( it got deleted  and  one of  my friends left  the game  because the GM  did that)

 so?...to sum stuff up..find a game you like, and see if  you are accepted...if you aren't accepted? it  doesn't matter. If you are accepted, then you see if you can play on the same team as the other  folks who are there.. if you can't?...thank the GM  for his/her  time  and leave...no one here..not one..is paid to play or  run a game, we do it for fun..if its not fun? don't do ti.
Ramidel
 member, 1379 posts
 Err on the side
 of awesome.
Mon 25 Jan 2021
at 16:01
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
If a GM were so heavy handed in my games that they railroaded the story in the direction they want I'd rage quit in an instant.


And there are plenty of players who enjoy GMs who largely have a pre-planned story, and GMs like that recruit players who'll go along with the plot. Operation Rimfire is an extremely popular Mekton module and the choo-choo is very strong with that one, even by the standards of adventure modules.

So, if a GM isn't running a game you like, find a game you do like. If there's no game you want to play, don't game until you find one.
Sir Swindle
 member, 284 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2021
at 16:17
Re: So close
Ramidel:
So, if a GM isn't running a game you like, find a game you do like. If there's no game you want to play, don't game until you find one.

But to his point it is really frustrating when you see a game with a concept you would really like to explore as a campaign but then the restrictions and such are so stringent that you know you won't enjoy the game with that GM at the helm.

It's like seeing someone order a steak well-done. It had potential and someone ruined it.
tmagann
 member, 696 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2021
at 16:27
Re: So close
That example is blaming the other guy for having preferences different than yours.

And that is the core issue here: if you can't find a game to your specific preferences...maybe you're tastes are just too specific

Two choices:

1: Expand your criteria, take a chance, and maybe find out you can enjoy more than you realize. Or less, I guess, given the topic.

2: Have more patience. Realize that what you're looking for is THAT unusual, and just keep searching. Or posting in GMs Wanted. Or both.

Actually, there is a third: run the game yourself and see just what you want the rest of us to put up with for you.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15996 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Mon 25 Jan 2021
at 16:50
Re: So close
Sir Swindle:
It's like seeing someone order a steak well-done. It had potential and someone ruined it.

You don't have to eat it.  They're probably wondering how you can eat raw meat.
Hunter
 member, 1637 posts
 Captain Oblivious!
 Lurker
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 04:32
Re: So close
DaCuseFrog:
I've run into this problem in a couple of different ways.  One is "PHB only."


I've found, over the years, that core book only typically means either for new players or it's the GMs first serious attempt.    And that's not just D&D, it's all game systems.
Sir Swindle
 member, 285 posts
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 12:16
Re: So close
Hunter:
DaCuseFrog:
I've run into this problem in a couple of different ways.  One is "PHB only."


I've found, over the years, that core book only typically means either for new players or it's the GMs first serious attempt.    And that's not just D&D, it's all game systems.

Sometimes. But do your research and if it isn't DESTROY THEM.
facemaker329
 member, 7312 posts
 Gaming for over 40
 years, and counting!
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 18:31
Re: So close
...because nobody besides you should enjoy their gaming experience?
evileeyore
 member, 451 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 20:22
Re: So close
Sir Swindle:
Sometimes. But do your research and if it isn't DESTROY THEM.

Why?  Why not not just let the very experienced GM with his pool of very experienced Players use the Core system as they wish?
Hunter
 member, 1638 posts
 Captain Oblivious!
 Lurker
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 22:44
So close
In reply to Draegnoth (msg # 1):

It's a bit of my fault that things got derailed.   That said...

If there's a specific character/setting/etc that you want to play in, it's probably best to put a post in the GM wanted section.   It might take a while before someone nibbles, though.
Sir Swindle
 member, 291 posts
Tue 26 Jan 2021
at 22:46
So close
GM wanted is the ultimate punt. Just keep applying someone will let you use your wierdo concept eventually.
Tileira
 member, 526 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2021
at 11:18
Re: So close
Draegnoth:
Maybe my problem is that I've gamed with selfish morons and have grown used to it. The one other person in my local gaming group who is a reasonable and rational human being feels the same way. But they're all we have in this small rural area so its game with them or don't game at all. For the last 2 years its been don't game at all. Thats why I'm online now.


Here's the thing. IRL games, the whole group needs to be onboard for the same game. If you have a group you play with and you know that a certain player always wants to play tabaxi or that Jack always wants to play Hans Solo, you take that into account when planning.

That is not the case online. You are playing with total strangers most of the time and you have no idea how Bob1987 or PieSmasher* or whoever are as people, or what they want. You especially don't know that if you have never spoken to them and don't know they exist. So you come up with the game you want and you put in restrictions on the stuff you don't want to deal with, like "no chaotic neutral" or "no monstrous races" so that you can actually run the game you couldn't put on your IRL table.

So you're here looking for the games you can't play IRL, but you have to recognise that there are GMs here for the same reason.

Basically, I don't know you, and if your response to me saying "this is what I want to run" is to get in a strop about not being allowed to do x thing, I don't want to know you.



*apologies if these turn out to be actual usernames. I'm not calling anyone out.

This message was last edited by the user at 11:24, Thu 28 Jan.

Starchaser
 member, 843 posts
 Shoda mo tsumoreba taibok
Thu 28 Jan 2021
at 12:27
Re: So close
As someone whose tastes can sometimes be a little picky, I can feel the frustration of the OP, but basically what everyone else said. One person's meat is another person's poison. Best advice is to keep looking until you find a game you think you'll like, play in it for a while and stick around if you like it. Otherwise politely let the gm know and say goodbye and look again.

But don't force a GM to do what you want. It's their game, after all.