I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Actually, I haven't made any such assumption. I said as much when I said nobody in this thread (except the OP) knows what happened prior to "no.". As such, I have drawn no conclusions as to whether the OP was being uncompromising or no.

The ONLY conclusion I have made is that the players reacted rudely to the OP, which they clearly did by labeling him a "hedonist" etc. and walking out for saying no instead of saying "thanks but no", "what about playing a different game?" or volunteering to run a game themselves.

Okay, you haven't made any assumptions...

Besides, its hardly authoritarian or "entitled" to run the game as written.

How did you know the game was RAW again?

You must have missed the part where he basically said that their wishes would turn the game into a non-rpg? Because, that's a pretty jerky thing to say.

Like I said before, being rude to a jerk might not be mature but neither party can claim maturity.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

In my post, I included the thought that the GM knows more than the players. Then I used two examples of why the GM might be able to make a more informed decision than the players.

Just because you know "more" doesn't mean you know what a player will and will not enjoy and so you can't make a decision in their best interest because you are not them. Players are not children.

I've already expressed how I would deal with that situation where the player's decision for their own enjoyment are respected. You might have missed the edit:

As for your hypothetical, I change my plots to suit my players on a game by game basis. So I would let the player turn into a dragon or whatever and come up with another explanation as to why the dragons haven't been seen.

Player gets to do something cool and I get to flex my creative muscles. Win/Win.

Can you at least see why people would knowingly and logically agree to a mutually acceptable social contract where the GM gets to make calls that include "no"?

I can but I think it's outdated and a symptom of the "DM as an authoritarian figure" attitude. Now where are we? At another impasse? Do you want to leave it here or?

 

[FireLance]

This is, to me, where you're blindingly wrong. I've completely dismissed player requests before precisely because I care about their enjoyment.

Just to add a counterpoint, I would have handled both these cases differently.

(1) I had a player who wanted to invent gunpowder with a character he was considering making. He never made the character, as I told him no, he couldn't invent gunpowder. Why? Because this was the type of world that would latch onto that technology. The people of the world were generally highly proficient, and they would unlock the mystery of how the PC created gunpowder by acquiring it through any means necessary. Once this was done, it would only be a matter of time before the technology spread across the countries and continents.

This would do two things to make the idea less enjoyable for the players: (1) they wanted to play in a standard fantasy setting, and adding gunpowder would quickly destroy that, and (2) the player wanted only his character to have it, and this likely wouldn't be the case once enough kings sent their best warriors, mages, assassins, and thieves to get the equipment from him. Saying no saved the player from playing a character that wouldn't pan out the way he wanted it to, and it saved all the players from the setting irrevocably progressing. (Before it comes up, this was an established sandbox campaign, and I would not have fudged events once gunpowder was used to keep it out of the hands of those who wanted it.)

I would have ruled that for some mysterious reason, the gunpowder only works for the PC. Maybe it's a latent magical talent, or the PC has somehow acquired a connection to a reality with different physical laws (maybe one of his ancestors was from it), but attempts by others to use his gunpowder or to manufacture it according to his formula simply fail. Yes, it makes the PC special and an exception to the rules, but I see nothing wrong with that.

(2) Let's say a player wants to take a class that slowly begins transforming him into a dragon, half-dragon, dragonkin, or the like, after having multiple meetings with a "dragon cult" that had ritualistically infused themselves with dragon blood (the PC wants to copy the ritual). The players know that dragons haven't been seen in about a hundred years since the last Great War, and think it would be cool to see this progress. On the surface, this looks fine. It would be cool to see, so no problems.

Now, let's add the facts of what only the GM knows: the dragons were not eliminated, but were forcibly controlled (through artifacts) by the Dragon Masters and herded over the mountains to the north. Then, artifacts were created (using dragon magic and blood) to drive all of dragonkind insane, unless controlled. This keeps dragons in a state of perpetual control, else they lose all sanity. So, they have the choice: do they lose all sanity but become free, or do they willingly serve malicious masters but keep their minds intact? With these two options, the dragons mostly serve, waiting for the ritual to be undone.

Now, your player wants to infuse himself with dragon blood. Do you let him do so, knowing he'll drive himself insane (or, at best, controlled by the bad guys)? Or, do you say no, and save the PC so the player can keep having fun? As of this point, the "dragon cult" is deeply woven into your campaign, so while you could retcon it out, it would not be nearly as fulfilling to the players once they uncovered what it really was (assume it would be fulfilling to them as players to uncover it, like it would be for mine). And, if you retcon it out, you'll be denying them the enjoyment of that deeply fulfilling feeling.

Seriously, why decide that the artifacts can control the PC simply because he has infused himself with dragon blood? Or maybe the artifacts only have a very minor effect on him since he is only partly draconic. I think it would actually add to the game since it would give the PC a very personal reason to want to take down the cult!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Okay, you haven't made any assumptions...



How did you know the game was RAW again?

Fair point: I did assume the game in question was D&D.

Therefore, it is more accurate to say I have made no assumptions about the OP's character being blameless or contributory to the conflict's escalation.

You must have missed the part where he basically said that their wishes would turn the game into a non-rpg? Because, that's a pretty jerky thing to say.

As a statement about playstyle, I think the OP's statement about removing the sting of permanent PC death and the difficulty of resurrection may have been strongly worded, but not particularly "jerky."

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Fair point: I did assume the game in question was D&D.

Ah huh. You also assumed that there were no house-rules, DM fiat or anything else that deviates from the RAW.

As a statement about playstyle, I think the OP's statement about removing the sting of permanent PC death and the difficulty of resurrection may have been strongly worded, but not particularly "jerky."

Well, we'll depart here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ah huh. You also assumed that there were no house-rules, DM fiat or anything else that deviates from the RAW.

Nope- just that rule. As I pointed out in several of my responses to you, nobody in this thread except the OP knows how much HRing was going on- I mentioned it every time I pointed out I felt you were jumping to conclusions.

See post 145 and 126 for example.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Nope- just that rule. As I pointed out in several of my responses to you, nobody in this thread except the OP knows how much HRing was going on- I mentioned it every time I pointed out I felt you were jumping to conclusions.

In that case, you have a very strange idea of rules as written.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In that case, you have a very strange idea of rules as written.

It's called being "realistic."

In 34 years in gaming, I have never encountered a campaign in which the RPG was run 100% RAW. Something is always added, excised or modified.

So I have no problem understanding when I hear someone say they run a game RAW "except for __________." Heck, I almost expect it.

Which means in the context of this thread, I had no problem labeling the OP's death rule as RAW, while simultaneously thinking that in all probability, other aspects of the game were changed.

And IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that. At some point, if you're not using at least some game's default rules- the RAW- you're not playing that game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Now where are we? At another impasse? Do you want to leave it here or?

I have thoughts relevant as to why I disagree, but if we're both pretty settled that different approaches work for different groups, I'm good leaving it be. If you don't think so (for whatever reason), then I wouldn't know how to proceed anyways. As always, play what you like

Just to add a counterpoint, I would have handled both these cases differently.

Always interesting to hear about!

I would have ruled that for some mysterious reason, the gunpowder only works for the PC. Maybe it's a latent magical talent, or the PC has somehow acquired a connection to a reality with different physical laws (maybe one of his ancestors was from it), but attempts by others to use his gunpowder or to manufacture it according to his formula simply fail. Yes, it makes the PC special and an exception to the rules, but I see nothing wrong with that.

Considering we're playing the RPG I created, with a design goal of "all options equally applicable to everything within the rules," it'd be a problem in the sense that it'd be breaking the rules. The why must be reasoned, and if someone wanted to crack how to do it, they should be able to do so (according to the rules of my game) if they're skilled enough. But, my game is very mechanically structured in this way, so I could easily see a different approach in a different system (any D&D edition, Mutants and Masterminds, etc.).

Seriously, why decide that the artifacts can control the PC simply because he has infused himself with dragon blood? Or maybe the artifacts only have a very minor effect on him since he is only partly draconic. I think it would actually add to the game since it would give the PC a very personal reason to want to take down the cult!

The cultists in this scenario were under their control too, which would be part of the plot. They're essentially thralls (willing or unwilling) to the Dragon Masters. For the sake of the argument, say the reasoning makes sense in-game. What's your take on my situation, then?

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

It's called being "realistic."

Yeah, okay.