Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[shadzar]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

To me, you always sound like you´re creating your stuff in a total vacuum without any feedback or imput

Seeing as the crowd of people like that include: Gary Gygax, Tracy Hickman, Ed Greenwood, Erik Mona, Ari Marmell, etc; I will take that as a very high compliment.

As when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts, and those are just some of the good adventure designers amongst many.

They do very well with many an adventure without having the end-users input.

Other than that you comment is very laughable since you have not played with me....

I would guess then that you are always creating things in the chaos of players and have no sense of continuity, no sense of direction, and no sense of actually trying to make the game work as you are changing everything on a players whim whether it helps the game or not but just to keep them happy, with how little I know about your games the same as you know about mine, as it seems you would then be the opposite of the design spectrum from me.

 

[Coldwyn]

Seeing as the crowd of people like that include: Gary Gygax, Tracy Hickman, Ed Greenwood, Erik Mona, Ari Marmell, etc; I will take that as a very high compliment.

As when designing an adventure you do NOT know the final players you will be playing for an DO design in a vacuum of sorts, and those are just some of the good adventure designers amongst many.

They do very well with many an adventure without having the end-users input.

Other than that you comment is very laughable since you have not played with me....

I would guess then that you are always creating things in the chaos of players and have no sense of continuity, no sense of direction, and no sense of actually trying to make the game work as you are changing everything on a players whim whether it helps the game or not but just to keep them happy, with how little I know about your games the same as you know about mine, as it seems you would then be the opposite of the design spectrum from me.

Is there a saying for when two people talk but they don´t talk with each other? I think this is happening here.

Okay, taking a step back, I understood you thus: You create a world/setting/campaign whole cloth, working on internal consistence, the feel of it, internal logic and a certain flavour. You go to great lengths to make everything fitting and everything has a place in this.
At the actual table, you have every player hand in their characters and then aprove or disaprove based on whether that character fits into your preconceived scenario.

I, on the other hand, ask my players what they like to see in the next world/setting/campaign and work from there on out. If no one has any interest in dwarves, I leave them out. If no one like playing a human, I leave them out. If everyone agrees on grim and gritty, I make it so. Fantasy Samurai Japan? Why not. And so on.

So yes, we are on different sides of the spectrum but I strongly disagree with you saying this is "whim", "keep them happy" "no consistency". I just may be an indication why I more or less never run into the situation where I have to say no just to keep my campaign running.

 

[shadzar]

Is there a saying for when two people talk but they don´t talk with each other? I think this is happening here.

Okay, taking a step back, I understood you thus: You create a world/setting/campaign whole cloth, working on internal consistence, the feel of it, internal logic and a certain flavour. You go to great lengths to make everything fitting and everything has a place in this.
At the actual table, you have every player hand in their characters and then aprove or disaprove based on whether that character fits into your preconceived scenario.

I, on the other hand, ask my players what they like to see in the next world/setting/campaign and work from there on out. If no one has any interest in dwarves, I leave them out. If no one like playing a human, I leave them out. If everyone agrees on grim and gritty, I make it so. Fantasy Samurai Japan? Why not. And so on.

So yes, we are on different sides of the spectrum but I strongly disagree with you saying this is "whim", "keep them happy" "no consistency". I just may be an indication why I more or less never run into the situation where I have to say no just to keep my campaign running.

You understood wrong, because I don't repeat it in every post, but as the DM is chosen and accepted, then the world is designed based off of things that were accepted.

That means up front the DM knows what type of game FROM the players.

If the players offer nothing but "run a game for us", then they take what they get.

I don't go changing things in the middle after all the work just to try to fit in dwarves, if the game has been without them.

I don't worry about the next game until this one is concluded. The only reason for change in the world and what it contains is if during play something isnt working right. The players however don't get to pick something to include for the next session of an ongoing campaign.

I do anything up front that sets up the game world and develop a living world. The only thing that changes the world is through play after that. Things don't really sit around empty and wait for players to want to explore them. The clock is always ticking while the player are active.

Some around here seem to want to discuss things in the middle of play to an extent I would get up and leave as a DM. If the game isn't working to that extent, then I am not the one wanted to run it, and packing up my work and let the enxt one run it. The why's and why not's of things of the world of that game will be learned during game if needed, and those things not included aren't important for that game being played.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Isn't it odd that Gygax has been seen as a gaming tyrannt, ruling his table with an iron fist after you see what he actually said?

Published settings: someone already made the world for me. World Tree: metal exists, it's just hard to come by because every bit of it has to be created by magic, using the Noun that has very few low complexity spells. Diomin: Most of the player races are basically human, and they're all human sized.

In general, I don't have a problem when someone can explain how to fit their concept in. When they have "no good reason" for it is when I use my banhammer. Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.

 

[Mallus]

The DM is told, and rightfully so to be the master of the game, the one running it, the one in charge, because there is their main role. To make the game work. Like many governments are given power to make decisions for a vastly large number of people, so is the DM tasked to make decisions that would keep its games people in the proper state of affairs.

My game is more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

 

[shadzar]

My game is more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

I think they make shots for that now, but it isn't life threatening in most cases, so you should be fine with it.

Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.

and of course who is playing it and what they will accept, which brings us to this thread in the first place. the more willing you are to trust the DM, the more you are able to accept his decisions to make a good game for you to play in.

 

[catsclaw227]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION] --

I had asked upthread a clarifying question....

How long do your typical campaigns run? And do you usually run for strangers or for a relatively steady group of players?

Do you run mostly short games at stores or cons, or do you have a regular gaming group and campaign that you have been running long term (meaning a year or more).

 

[Coldwyn]

[MENTION=6667746]shadzar[/MENTION]

I really could find any instance where you said that there is talk before you start designing and so I had the wrong impression

 

[shadzar]

shadzar--

I had asked upthread a clarifying question....

I did not see that.

How long do your typical campaigns run?

Currently not long

And do you usually run for strangers or for a relatively steady group of players?

Strangers due to time limitations and system switching et all of old group that still live nearby

Do you run mostly short games at stores or cons, or do you have a regular gaming group and campaign that you have been running long term (meaning a year or more).

Currently short term as needed. Often one shots that must fit in a few hours per session in a store or other place to get the idea of what the game is about in general pretty much equivalent to the game days type setups.

Long term campaign died as people moved and schedule conflicts occurred.

[MENTION=10041]Coldwyn[/MENTION]: I didn't feel the need to repeat it over and over in each, but mentioned it at first when the "communication" angle came up about how that should have been done BEFORE the game starts. This thread has grown fast, so it is likely lost on a page from a week or so ago.

But in any event, not everything should be up to the players, and the DM stills needs to be in a "comfort zone" to be able to run the game, and things he doesn't like are simply thing he shouldnt use because it will affect his performance, and we are back to square one. A DM willing to run those things is needed, or the player in question really needing that thing needs to pick something else or look for a game that suits his tastes more.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't it odd that Gygax has been seen as a gaming tyrannt, ruling his table with an iron fist after you see what he actually said?

Published settings: someone already made the world for me. World Tree: metal exists, it's just hard to come by because every bit of it has to be created by magic, using the Noun that has very few low complexity spells. Diomin: Most of the player races are basically human, and they're all human sized.

In general, I don't have a problem when someone can explain how to fit their concept in. When they have "no good reason" for it is when I use my banhammer. Good reason, will of course vary depending on who's running the game.

Not really that odd when you look at it. Gygax is saying Game first, Campaign second and Players third. That's the order of importance. So, any player wants or needs come dead last in the heirarchy. Would tend to sound a lot like Big Daddy Chair DMing.

Whether he actually played like this or not, I have no idea. But base solely on that particular quote, I'd say that's absolutely horrible Dming advice. I'd order it, Players, Campaign and then Game dead last. Keep the players happy, keep the campaign running smoothly and the Game can take care of itself.

Only so long as the DM is willing and interested in running said creation and adding it to the world. If they are not, then it will show in the treatment of that creation. But again could lead to the "non special", where everyone then wants to try some special creation that could run the DM into the ground and lose interest. Then someone else will have to run it and you lose a player either way in the long run.

If you come forward with the "Human only, Low Fantasy" campaign and all your players come back with non-human high magic characters, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong here. At that point a DM really should be stepping back and considering running this particular campaign for this group because it's pretty obviously not a good idea.

If no one at the table actually wants to play what you're proposing, it's time to go back to the drawing board, or find a new group.

Of course, this gets trickier when it's not the entire group. If three of the five come back with high magic, non-human characters, what do you do? Two of the five? One of the five, you can probably work around it - either incorporate it using the tried and true "one off" method, or just say no.

This all comes back to the social contract at the table. This sort of thing has to get hashed out before play starts.