How come the GM is always treated as crap in these situations. The GM is a player as well, GMs arent some company there to cater to the customer's whim. If they players arent having fun that sucks, but it also goes the other way if the GM isnt having fun then he won't care about the game. Why do people not realize it goes both ways?
inb4 someone twists my words saying GMs only matter and i'm a bad GM for not catering to the players every whim.
Who said anything about the GM being treated like crap? The GM runs the show. Everything is under his control with one exception--the player characters (not that he doesn't have veto rights for concepts that just don't work for the campaign, or which he feels are unacceptable for some other reason.) I have no idea how as GM I'm being treated like crap because my philosophy is not to passive aggressively punish my players for wanting to play different characters than I might want them to.
As GM, I have the most fun when the game is successful. My game is most successful when my players are enjoying the game. The GM is hardly being treated like crap in this situation. It's a win-win for everyone.
I will say that, like so many similar threads, this one also looks to become one of player's rights vs. DM's rights.
It does now, anyway.
Please excuse me but I must say that I'm baffled that people are satisfied with unbalanced groups.
With an all-rogue party you basically lose quarter of the monsters in Monster Manual.
With an all-rogue party you lack many creative approaches to many situations which a balanced group might have.
With an all-rogue party you make the XP system very difficult. Four 9th-level rogues are no match to a Roc. Also dealing large masses of opponents is difficult without a mid-level wizard.
Also one of the rogues might be outshone by the others, thus being useless.
1) I have almost a dozen monster manuals. So what? For that matter, I prefer NPCs as opponents most of the time anyway. Monsters are only special if they're treated somewhat more rarely.
2) And I've facilitated the use of much more creativity instead of inviting the cookie-cutter, predictable approach that a balanced party offers.
3) I don't care too much about the XP system. I already run it pretty fast and loose. It's not more difficult in an all rogue party; it's less. At least for me. And yes, mobs are more difficult. That's not a flaw, that's a bonus. Same with Undead. I
like that rogues are less effective at damaging them, and that they can't just be turned. Makes them much more exciting to use again. Besides, have you ever seen a rogue with maxed out bonuses in Diplomacy, with synergy from Bluff, high Charisma, and Skill Focus? I'm talking nearly +20 checks at third level craziness. If anything, the rogue is much
more effective than the wizard with his fireball. Marc Anthony, move aside. My rogue came to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
4) Something that already happens in a normal game as it is. This seems less likely to occur, not more.
I mean, I see where you're going, but it doesn't really bother me. Just like I'm not bothered that
The Bourne Legacy didn't include beholders and dragons, it doesn't bother me that certain monsters may not turn up in every campaign. Sometimes they just don't fit. I greatly prefer skullduggery and intrigue anyway, and an all-rogue party is perfect for that kind of game. Again; a successful game is a collaborative effort. If the GM is trying to run roughshod over his players and take away their one element of actual choice (or punish them for making the choices that they did) then that's not my idea of collaboration. Likewise, although it's not really relevent to this discussion, if the players don't work with the GM and bring characters that are appopriate to the context of the campaign concept that the GM has pitched to them, the campaign is equally likely to fail.
It isn't a GM vs. player situation. It's a GM with the players situation. Without collaboration, the game is likely to fail. And it's equally likely to fail if the GM
or the players are unwilling to collaborate. In my opinion, the situation described in the first few responses are clear indicators of GM's being unwilling to collaborate with their players. That leads inevitably to unsatisfied and unhappy players, and games that--while they may not be overt failures--aren't likely to be rousing successes that are talked about years after the fact either.
