Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[TheAuldGrump]

It's your interpretation of his meaning that I'm questioning. See the post above yours.


In context, his being god meant he makes all the decisions. That means going back, if he wants to. It's god within the context of power over his game, not within the context of infallibility.

Except that by his statement he never bothers finding what the players think - they do not matter... ever, remember?

What he said does not contradict giving the reasons why he won't do it. I routinely explain my thought process, and make my decisions based on player feedback. I do not make that decision based on player wants.

Except that the players never matter... ever.

If you get the final say no matter what people put forth, that's My Way or The Highway GMing. It's not inherently a bad thing. It's a normal thing, that wise GMs with good judgment will not abuse.

Except that in the case of the OP it is being abused, and by Pilgrim's statement he does not care if he is abusing it.

Which should be brought up with the GM. Communication is key, here. If it's a deal-breaker, express such, and follow through if it isn't changed. This leads back to Pilgrim's original point, which we have been discussing.

And again, read Pilgrim's initial statement, and his defenses of it. I really do not see room for your interpretation. If 'It is not about what the players' want... ever' then discussion will not matter.

It is possible that it was hyperbole, but it should be acknowledged as such, especially given the context of the OP.

If you're prepared to deny them access to your game if they disagree, how isn't this My Way or The Highway?

And there's the rub - they do not disagree. If they do disagree, then I listen. I do not take the PoV that ''It is not about what the players' want... ever' - trying to say that it allows room for argument is sophistry. He has stated, outright, that 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'.

There really is no getting around that one pile of... piffle.

I have never had players rise up en mass to protest my rulings. Even in the case of the piecemeal armor I was the one who bounced it off of them. I did not say 'hey guys, like it or not we are switching to piecemeal armor!' It is possible that had I done so then we would be playing with those rules. But, and this is important, those rules were not as important to me as running a game that both my players and I enjoy. If the piecemeal armor would have made their game less enjoyable, well, it wasn't worth shoving down their throats. And when next I run a campaign in that setting they are willing to try the rules out.

It is about compromise, something that is left out when the motto is 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'

See, this makes sense to me. Perfect sense. Especially since I think nearly every GM draws a line when it comes to My Way or The Highway GMing. Nearly every GM has a line that they'll draw, even if it doesn't come up most of the time, or if players never object to it.

You're effectively saying, "this style may not be worth it to this player." I agree. That's a very reasonable statement, and perhaps very informative if the OP hasn't put much thought into it yet.

But further, I am saying that if the group as a whole is saying that it is not worth it, then there is every reason to believe that it isn't worth it, and that they should either state outright that it is a problem, or remove him as GM.

If I had a GM insisting that there is a 5% chance that if I do anything, even climbing a freaking tree then something lethal can happen... he would either already have addressed the problem, or he would be gone, at least with any of the groups that I game with.

This does not contradict Pilgrim's original post. It supports it.

No, because the example that we are building on is that A GM has instituted rules that the group, as a whole find to be unenjoyable. And Pilgrim is saying Don't bother trying to change the GM's mind - 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'

It depends on what your goal is. If it's to keep running a game, no matter how displeasurable the game is to you personally, it might fail. Personally, if you have a group of unhappy players, it has a high chance of having absolutely nothing to do with a My Way or The Highway attitude. It's probably just a play style difference. You could change it, but if you'd be unhappy, why do so?

Because I like running games. Because I don't run games that are 'displeasurable' to either me or my players. I don't think that I have ever run a game that wasn't fun for both the players and myself. Possibly because I do ask for feedback.

Probably. And if I did, then yes. Because, again, no player has ever walked away from my table because they're dissatisfied.

The best example I can think of is switching to my system in it's fledgling stages (back when it was just a bunch of complicated house rules). I said, "the next game I run will be with this (insert 100 pages)."

I heard back, "we'd rather keep playing 3.5, it's been so fun."

"Well, too bad," I said. "It's this, or I'll be playing in one of your games."

In honesty? I, or my group, would likely have called you on it. You would either have been playing in someone else's game, or taken a walk, depending on tempers.

I have been in that situation, and I did end up running a game for a while because of it, until the GM decided that his incredibly complicated magic and combat system did not work.

I do not count it among my previous examples because that group changed games regularly anyway. (There was something like a dozen ongoing campaigns, none of which were ever finished - six GMs, some with multiple campaigns, games from Ars Magica to The Morrow Project.)

The only reason that example stands out is that everyone except the GM realized that the rules that he had just didn't work - a combination of overly complicated rules and very poor math skills. It took a while with no one pointing out the flaws for him to acknowledge that they were flaws. He had a bad case of the stubborns, I don't think that maggots in a black hanky would've convinced him that he was dead. Just time to fall out of love with his own creation.

We started playing the game that I proposed, because they wanted me GMing.

Then your group decided that it was Worth It. Mine likely would not. But, again, this is important, I have not gamed with you, so maybe I would think it was Worth It. But it would have to be a damned fun game. (As an example - 4e would not pass muster.)

We are unlikely to agree - I will keep quoting 'It is not about what the players' want... ever' (I have it on my clipboard now, can you tell?) and you will keep trying to say that he did not mean it as the blanket 'The GM Is Always Right' that I and others read it as. So, let us drop the matter.

I love chicken.

Mmm, curry. Always good.

The Auld Grump, too tired to continue arguing anyway....

 

[pemerton]

Pilgrim said that players wants don't matter within the context of decision making. Within the context of GM authority, he's saying that no matter how much I want something, he won't make the decision based on it. I'm not sure how this doesn't tie into GM authority.

Pilgrim's comment relates to GM authority. Your example doesn't, because your example is not an example of a GM exercising or not exercising authority in response to player wants, nor is it an example of a possible shifting of authority from GM to player. It is an example of a group already having agreed upon a set of PC build and action resolution rules ("core PHB") and then a player wanting to unilaterally change/break those rules ("I want my 1st level PC to be able to fly").

From the fact that, in your scenario, the player doesn't get what s/he wants - that is, the group sticks to its decision to play a core PHB game - nothing at all follows, that I can see, about the proper, or even the conceivable, limits upon GM authority.

And no matter how much I want to fly, that want won't affect his decision to let me fly.

It's not the GM's decision. If the group has decided to play a core PHB game, then the GM does not have to make any decision about whether or not a 1st level PC can fly. The matter has already been settled by the group agreeing to certain PC build and action resolution rules (namely, core PHB).

I assume that your opinion is that the GM has the unilateral power to overturn that group agreement, but your example of a PC being unable to fly doesn't give me any reason to think that you're right in general about the unilateral power a GM does or should have.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Apropos of, well, not much -
Dr. Cockroach: Forgive him, but as you can see, he has no brain.

B.O.B.: Turns out you don't need one. Totally overrated! As a matter of fact, I don't even... Oh! I forgot how to breathe! Don't know how to breathe! Help me, Dr. Cockroach! Help! Help!

Dr. Cockroach: Suck in, B.O.B.

B.O.B.: Thanks, Doc. You're a lifesaver.

I couldn't find a video for it.

The Auld Grump

 

[JamesonCourage]

Except that by his statement he never bothers finding what the players think - they do not matter... ever, remember?

No, their wants don't matter. Not their opinions. Not their arguments. Their wants. He's indicated that players can indeed voice their opinion.

Except that the players never matter... ever.

That's extrapolating his statement to something Pilgrim never said.

Except that in the case of the OP it is being abused, and by Pilgrim's statement he does not care if he is abusing it.

No, not that he doesn't care. His statement did not indicate whether or not he accepted reasonable objections to his decisions. He indicated that player wants didn't matter.

And again, read Pilgrim's initial statement, and his defenses of it. I really do not see room for your interpretation. If 'It is not about what the players' want... ever' then discussion will not matter.

No, that's not true. If you don't make a decision based on player wants, you can still make a decision based on the reasonableness of their arguments.

And there's the rub - they do not disagree. If they do disagree, then I listen. I do not take the PoV that ''It is not about what the players' want... ever' - trying to say that it allows room for argument is sophistry. He has stated, outright, that 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'.

Again, this is different from "I will not consider the player's input... ever."

There really is no getting around that one pile of... piffle.

You seem to be interpreting it particularly harshly. I'm not. Either one of us could be off.

It is about compromise, something that is left out when the motto is 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'

Compromise is important. However, you can definitely come to decisions for the game you run not based on player wants. If a player says, "here's why it'd be particularly bad to implement those rules right now," they are advocating for what they want, yes, but that doesn't mean I have to base my decision based on that want. I can base my decision on the merit of their argument instead.

If I had a GM insisting that there is a 5% chance that if I do anything, even climbing a freaking tree then something lethal can happen... he would either already have addressed the problem, or he would be gone, at least with any of the groups that I game with.

This lines up with what Pilgrim said.

No, because the example that we are building on is that A GM has instituted rules that the group, as a whole find to be unenjoyable. And Pilgrim is saying Don't bother trying to change the GM's mind - 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'

1) No, he's not saying that. He might mean it, but he hasn't said that.
2) He said that the players have the right to walk away. Just as you've described. Your anecdotes support his claim.

Because I like running games. Because I don't run games that are 'displeasurable' to either me or my players. I don't think that I have ever run a game that wasn't fun for both the players and myself. Possibly because I do ask for feedback.

Then changing the game lines up with your want as GM. This also does not contradict Pilgrim's statement.

In honesty? I, or my group, would likely have called you on it. You would either have been playing in someone else's game, or taken a walk, depending on tempers.

I didn't say it to manipulate them. I said it to let them know I had no more interest in running 3.5 as it stood. I was completely okay with playing for a change

I have been in that situation, and I did end up running a game for a while because of it, until the GM decided that his incredibly complicated magic and combat system did not work.

He had a bad case of the stubborns, I don't think that maggots in a black hanky would've convinced him that he was dead. Just time to fall out of love with his own creation.

Whereas my game is a complete success to my group. One player (the next most likely to run a game) wants to run it over any other system, two players felt extremely restricted with their previous games (due to my play style and the flexibility of the system), and the White Wolf player thinks it makes d20 tolerable.

Sometimes, it turns out well.

Then your group decided that it was Worth It. Mine likely would not. But, again, this is important, I have not gamed with you, so maybe I would think it was Worth It. But it would have to be a damned fun game. (As an example - 4e would not pass muster.)

It's much closer to 3.5. It's SRD-based, so that's a good start for your group, I think. However, it's a lot grittier at higher levels, so maybe you wouldn't. I'm not sure your view on that.

We are unlikely to agree - I will keep quoting 'It is not about what the players' want... ever' (I have it on my clipboard now, can you tell?) and you will keep trying to say that he did not mean it as the blanket 'The GM Is Always Right' that I and others read it as. So, let us drop the matter.

I'm okay with that. Agreeing to disagree

Also, sorry if it's seeming like I'm squeezing the last word in... I'm replying to this as I read it, and now that I've typed all of it up, it seems like such a waste...

Mmm, curry. Always good.

If nothing else, we could be food buddies. As always, play what you like

Pilgrim's comment relates to GM authority. Your example doesn't, because your example is not an example of a GM exercising or not exercising authority in response to player wants, nor is it an example of a possible shifting of authority from GM to player. It is an example of a group already having agreed upon a set of PC build and action resolution rules ("core PHB") and then a player wanting to unilaterally change/break those rules ("I want my 1st level PC to be able to fly").

I'm guessing that it's laid out in Pilgrim's games, if you sit as his table, you follow his rules. Just a guess, but I don't see that as an unreasonable possibility.

It's not the GM's decision.

It would be my decision, so I don't accept your statement as universally true.

If the group has decided to play a core PHB game, then the GM does not have to make any decision about whether or not a 1st level PC can fly. The matter has already been settled by the group agreeing to certain PC build and action resolution rules (namely, core PHB).

That's if the group made that decision. They certainly agreed to it, but it's likely (certain in my group) that its the GM's decision. And, as I said earlier, Pilgrim probably makes it clear that at his table, his rules go. I'm guessing you agree to that when you sit down.

I assume that your opinion is that the GM has the unilateral power to overturn that group agreement, but your example of a PC being unable to fly doesn't give me any reason to think that you're right in general about the unilateral power a GM does or should have.

I'm not saying that it's the case for all groups, though. I'm saying that the majority of groups invest the GM with the power to say "My Way or The Highway", and that most GMs utilize that power. Pilgrim saying such is not odd, in my mind. His statement did not indication whether or not he allows things based on player reasonableness.

Again, not trying to convince you to play a way you don't want to. I do, however, think most GMs use "My Way or The Highway", however, and I think that it's perfectly acceptable as a GM to say no to a player, completely discounting their wants. Discounting reasonableness is something else entirely, however. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I don't undestand the contrast between reasonableness and wants. Reasonableness, presumably, is a property that some wants possess but others lack.

I also don't entirely understand reasonableness as a constraint. One of my players likes to play PCs who, from the point of view of the rest of the group, are almost unreasonable in their underpoweredness and mechanical idiosyncracy, but who are we to dictate how he builds his PCs? (Provided that he sticks to the rules.)

Finally, I'm curious what evidence there is that the majority of groups invest the GM with the sort of power you are positing. I don't think I've never come across such a group, although admittedly my experience is limited to one state in Australia. Perhaps the one GM against whom I led a coup thought that this was how things worked, but (i) the game didn't last long enough to really explore the issue, and (ii) when you are booted by the group and don't have a game anymore, who is on the highway?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Want is different from reasonableness. For example, if I sit in a friend's core PHB game, and we're level 1, I can demand to be able to fly. I'll have no way to fly, no spell, no racial speed, no ability, but I can demand it, because I really want to.

You: I want to be able to fly!
Me (GM): And I want to accommodate you. I'll see what I can do next session.

Next Session:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3f9uN9wKJU]Skyrim Space Program - Liftoff - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Iosue]

The statement "It is not about what the players' want... ever" is meaningless if then coupled with "My players enjoy my game."

It goes like this:
Statement: "It is not about what the players' want... ever"
Objection: "The de facto desire of all players is to have fun. That basic desire must be entertained."
Response: "My players have fun."
Conclusion: "You are bending to their desires by giving them fun. Ergo, the statement is untenable as it stands."

Everything else is drawing the line at where players have fun. In Pilgrim's group, they obviously have fun by leaving all decisions to him, and their investment in their own ideas and specific requests is not so great that they cease to have fun if he turns them down. In Systole's group the players are not having fun. The DM can either adjust his style so that they have fun as much fun as he is, or let the game die when they walk away. (And since Systole can DM himself, this is a viable option.)

The question then becomes is Supreme Executive Power worth more to Systole's DM than the game itself, or, is the game valued enough for a Group Magna Carta? Only Systole's DM can answer that.

 

[Pilgrim]

First off, I have to give props to JC, he's been making very valid arguments for what I said, covering a lot of what I might have argued myself.

Except that by his statement he never bothers finding what the players think

No I don't find out what players at my table think. They are more than capable of letting me know what they think on their own.

- they do not matter... ever, remember?

Except that the players never matter... ever.

I never said this; now you're either reading into what I said or inferring something of your own accord.

I said, "It is not about what the players' want... ever". This means, and I'm saying this as simply as I can, "Regardless of what the players think, feel, desire, or ask, a DM/GM is the one who by all rights, has the final say, final hand, and final decision in all matters of the game being played and run by that DM/GM. Period."

Player choice in any matter other than walking away from the table is an illusion. Sure a DM/GM can listen to a player's wants and even give that player what they want. But it is the DM/GM who has allowed it to be so. Without the DM's permission, the player does not get a change in rules, does not get items, treasure, powers, or anything else given to the character, a player can not make any changes to the game currently being played without the DM/GM saying so.

And yes, in this way, the DM/GM is in fact a "god" compared to the players and is the only one at the table who truly matters.

If a player or a group decides they don't like the way a DM/GM runs the game, they can voice their opinion, in which case a DM/GM might be willing to change things up. If not, they are free to walk away from the table, leaving the DM/GM with either a remaining group still willing to play or no players at all.

Except that in the case of the OP it is being abused, and by Pilgrim's statement he does not care if he is abusing it.

Please, abuse? That is laughable. It's a critical fumble that occurs on a nat 1. That is far from abuse. So the OP doesn't like it, by his own admittance they have yet to have a character die.

Annoying? Maybe. Inconveniencing? Possibly. Abuse? Well to quote someone previously, "Piffle."

I have never had players rise up en mass to protest my rulings.

What a coincidence, neither have I.

Even in the case of the piecemeal armor I was the one who bounced it off of them. I did not say 'hey guys, like it or not we are switching to piecemeal armor!' It is possible that had I done so then we would be playing with those rules. But, and this is important, those rules were not as important to me as running a game that both my players and I enjoy. If the piecemeal armor would have made their game less enjoyable, well, it wasn't worth shoving down their throats. And when next I run a campaign in that setting they are willing to try the rules out.

It is about compromise, something that is left out when the motto is 'It is not about what the players' want... ever'

But in the end, YOU as DM/GM of the game made the final decision. YOU decided that it wasn't worth the effort. You may have asked your players, but YOU made the call.

On the other hand if you had not asked them and introduced your idea, then tough on them, regardless of whether they liked the idea or not. If they were enjoying the game and wanted to continue to play they would deal with the decision you hand out. Otherwise, they have the option to walk.

Because I like running games. Because I don't run games that are 'displeasurable' to either me or my players. I don't think that I have ever run a game that wasn't fun for both the players and myself.

I could say the exact same thing. Though it would seem because you disagree, you're inferring that this might not be the case.

To wrap this whole thing up, let me just say that, I don't subscribe to this "new generation" notion of gaming that everyone at the table has to be "happy" because it's a "group effort" or else it's "unfun", a bad game and I'm a bad DM/GM. To borrow part of a previous quote, I think it's a big steaming "pile of....piffle."

I'm DM/GM, I call the shots. If someone else wants to call the shots, well, then there is the DM/GM's chair, have at it.

If I tell my group we're playing D&D and using 3d6 straight down as the method for char gen, and someone whines and bemoans the fact that they don't like that method, then tough. Roll a character or don't. If the entire group (which with my group they never would) whines and bemoans that they don't like that method, tough. Roll a character or don't. No players? Fine, someone else can run a game.

It's really just that simple.

 

[Janx]

Having the power to call the shots and phrasing it in such a way that it sounds offensive are 2 different things.

Every GM knows that the are technically deciding every thing.

But when you say it bluntly, everyone else thinks your an abusive jerk.

The power that not every GM posseses is TACT. The ability to say or not say things in such a way that makes others feel included in the decision and not powerless.

No player wants to be powerless. So if you let them fully think that nothing they do is their own because the GM decides and allows it, then they will think they have no power in their game. And they will leave.

Kinda defeats the point of the gaming exercise.

All because of a failure of communication.

 

[TerraDave]

Back to the fumble, now that I know more I can shift my position a little:

The fact that the result is just DM fiat is a problem. This can work in some games, but no, its not standard with recent D&D editions. Actually, does the other side fumble, can the players dictate what happens to them?

The frequency is also a problem, common tasks and multi attacks should be accommodated.

I would advise:

-Have a table with a small chance of some crazy stuff, and the rest more basic (knocked prone, attack--but not autohit--an ally, damage self, drop weapon, nearby! or just loose an action)

-Apply it equally to both sides

-Allow a save when their are multiple attacks in the round, or have an adjustment on the table

-Just wave it for low DC tasks.

I think an important principle that it is ok for the DM to with the players, and can even be a good thing, but he or she has to be fair about it.