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

[DoctorNick]

Uh... did you somehow miss all the supply and demand discussion that's gone on in this thread? Or did you just conveniently ignore it so that the analogy would appear to be meaningless?

Speaking of passive aggressive; first you make a passive aggressive swipe at the social skills of anyone using this particular analogy, then you make another passive aggressive swipe at the meaningfulness of the analogy. The latter in particular reveals that you've either got half the board on Ignore, or you simply haven't read most of the thread.

And then, after you passive-aggressively insult everyone involved in the discussion, you get really defensive when called on it, start getting all Mr. Pedantic Debate Man going, and throw out more passive aggressive insults.

You might want to reconsider who's showing signs of lack of social skills here.

Judging by our misunderstandings, I can understand your hostility. I've apologized already but if you'd like I can do it again.

I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around this thing and you've thrown nothing but hostility and insults at me. Sure I got a little snippy in my reply back but I'm kind of wondering who wouldn't.

Anyway, seeing as we've gone beyond any sort of civil discourse here, I now get to give you the final word. You sir, have an understanding of the use of pendantic, passive-agressive insults that surpasses my own.

Mod Note: Apparently, someone here thinks that, after a moderator warning to not get personal, a parting shot is okay if it has a smilie at the end. Someone would be wrong. Don't expect him back in the discussion. ~Umbran

 

[Desdichado]

smiley; oh, how I miss thee.

Mod Note: It was removed for a reason. If you feel the need for it, that's a strong indication you shouldn't be posting a response. A response that you want to use it is still a response. So, really, now would be a good time to drop it. ~Umbran

 

[chubbyloremaster]

Thnak you all for the effort of looking into this problem. It encouraged me to look up about objectivism and Ayan Rand in order to confront my players, and get some clarifications from them.

After a very long discussion I now know what they ment by me being hedonistic and how objectivism is tied to D&D.

First would be the topic of game entitlement and time spent on work. I came form a perspective that I risk more than the players in terms of work because my job is much more important than their will ever be and therefore I am in power to manage the game as I see fit and they should respect it or leave.

The objectivist response stated me that it doesn't matter how much work did it took for another person and how great risk did that person takes, the only one that matters is "I" and agreeing to a game which would not meet the demands of the objectivism would be self-sacrefice which as it apears it is the greatest sin for these kinds of people.

Second, would be GM authority. These objectivists believed that the GM thinks that his vision of playing the game is the one that should be accepted and therefore he is considered a hedonist by the sole fact that he for his own pleasure he allows the game to end after a TPK, just like Bill Tagart opinion on rich people.

Basicly what Bill Tagart meant was to make all rich people give up their riches and help support the goverment, and he is here the DM. Bill also said that he does'nt requier talented people and here is where he met his doom. This is an analogy to how I allowed my veteran players go and started a new group with my other friends who were new to D&D.

Summing it up it would appear that being a GM is the worst kind of job ever because you have to work hard and agree with the players on every corner which makes you a sinner beacause you practice self-sacrefice or you can go back and leave, and if you don't you are branded a hedonist who takes pleasure with making people suffer. I'm now trying to be a very open minded person but the next time I hear some of my players being a a radian hero/objectivist I will have a small talk, with him, about his future in the game to escape a bloodbath.

When I first started this thread I didn't thought this would end the way it did but now I sense that I lost some respect to some players out there due to these experiance.

 

[Herschel]

Heh, philosophically speaking, I have always hated Ayn Rand, who, in my estimation, elevated selfishness to a virtue.

Yeah, her "thinking" leaves a lot to be desired in thoughtful, civilized society where the goal is to keep a civilized society that works, but her views do appeal to certain types of people who you or I may or may not think much of but they do have their purposes if channeled correctly.

There's generally not much use for much Randian Influence in a gaming group.

 

[Herschel]

You're claiming because the DM does the most work, then their word is law. That's entitlement dude. Any position which encompasses the views and rules of the DM over all else, is authoritarian.

No, it's an agreed upon social contract. Here's teh steps as presented.

DM: "Hey guys, I have some cash and will buy this module if you guys are interested in playing my game".

Player: "Hey, that sounds great, I'm in."

Player: "What if my PC is offed?"

DM: "Well, I have always gone by and plan on using the good old, tried & true go find someone to resurrect your character path."

Player: "What? You mean you don't use X?"

DM: "No, I just said what I use."

Player: "You're a hedonist jerkface poopyhead who is trying to control my character. How dare you, it's MY character! This is what I want, and that's how it should be!"

DM: *scratches head*

 

[Mark CMG]

Hmm. I may have misunderstood when a player in my last game told me her character was Randy . . . with a capital "R."

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

So players should feel that they are equal to the DM in the authorship of the campaign?



EDIT to add: sorry to post such a stale and outdated response. I got stirred up and jumped the gun, didn't see that there were pages of other responses first. I'll go now and take the appropriate meds.

Yeah, that's exactly how cooperative games work. One party is not entitled to anything above another. If you don't accommodate for your players, fine, they leave but don't throw a tantrum when they do.

That's the part everyone is missing. You are all basically encouraging OP for throwing a tantrum because "Ayn Rand ruined my players", no you ruined the game for your players and they left. DMs are not entitled to get their way just because.

 

[wingsandsword]

There's generally not much use for much Randian Influence in a gaming group.

Randian characters could make great villains, those villains that somehow think they are heroes.

Imagine John Galt as a D&D villain: A high/epic level CN or CE character conspiring to bring down society because he judges the common people to be "leeches" and feels oppressed by the social contracts inherent to a lawful society so he brainwashes key figures into joining his cult to try to cause the collapse of the economy and government. He doesn't care how many commoners die in the chaos, just as long as he feels that he and those he deems worthy get the respect and independence that he feels they are due.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's the part everyone is missing. You are all basically encouraging OP for throwing a tantrum because "Ayn Rand ruined my players", no you ruined the game for your players and they left. DMs are not entitled to get their way just because.

The DM is final arbiter of the campaign- that's his job- and it extends to getting the final cut (as it were) on things like what sourcebooks will be used & what HRs will be in effect. He may take suggestions, but he is not bound to accept any of them.

Why? Because its his sole responsibility to run the campaign, including reading or writing the encounters so that things run smoothly.

The proper response if the game is not to your liking is NOT to pitch a fit- on either side- but to walk away like an adult. I've had all kinds of "No thanks" responses to games I was willing to run. I'm sure there will be others. And I've also walked away from games that didn't appeal to me. In neither case did I resort to calling the other players names.

The OP is not pitching a fit, IMHO, he came seeking clarification of a WTF? moment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, that's exactly how cooperative games work. One party is not entitled to anything above another. If you don't accommodate for your players, fine, they leave but don't throw a tantrum when they do.

That's the part everyone is missing. You are all basically encouraging OP for throwing a tantrum because "Ayn Rand ruined my players", no you ruined the game for your players and they left. DMs are not entitled to get their way just because.

I am all for tailoring the game to your players, but they were asking for a rather unusual house rule and clearly it wasn't a style of play the gm was interested in. This was obviously a mismatch of styles. My sympathies tend toward the OP because the players basicslly came off as rude. There was no reason to call the GM a hedonist (in the Randian sense). If they want to play that way that is fine. But I don't think they will find that many people who are interested.