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

[chubbyloremaster]

I put in use all the advice about GM discipline I was given here and changed my gaming group to a little less stressful and friendlier athmosphere. But as I was having fun I wanted to know what might happen if I start a game with my older group without giving the players power to go into the GM area of authority. I play very casualy and people from different gaming backgrounds are quite pleased with the games I run but oh boy did this encounter made me feel like I was in a twilight zone.

So I met with the players one on one to ask them if they want to play a Pathfinder Module to test it. I had some extra cash so I asked them to choose a starting level and ask me if I agree. We were going to play the Harrowing a 9th level adventure which can hapen just anywere. The players gave me their sheets online and everything went smooth, even too smooth if I recall other games that I played with them.

After a day before the adventure I was asked about how death will be treated. I replyed that If the die they can seek resurection but hopefully it won't happen, and here is where this started.
-But you want to continue the story don't you? Why not introduce a load mechanic, you dont play 100- hour rpgs without it don't you?
-Sorry but I will not change this game from rpg to a scenario where there is no challenge and I just reade what you give me. My decision is final, if you die and cannot be resurrected we can start another adventure of higher level if you like.

And here is the point where Ms. Ayn came into play. One of the players read 'Atlas Shrugged' and braded me a hedonistic DM who enjoys the game on their cost. They all left the conversation room telling me to change my style because only hardcore gamers might considere playing with me at this point.

I didn't read Atlas but I get the point a little bit about hedonism-bad, egoistic-good but this just confused me. Can someone translate what just happend because I still don't know what was their point.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Opinion:

Their point was: "We play games so we can write and invest ourselves in our characters and don't think you'll be a good fit for that goal" this was followed up no doubt by the "there are tons of other GMs online and we aren't bound to play with you".

As to the Ayn Rand thing, your player would have felt the same way regardless and had a new way to express himself or herself that probably didn't fit the situation, but it was how he or she internalized it based on recent influences. This is what I call "bs drama" and is usually followed up by the infamous "I can do this better than you". Don't be surprised if that player starts a game.

My response when dealing with this kind of bs is "Good riddance as I don't need you" followed up by "There are many more players online that can be played with."

Live and let live.

 

[malcolypse]

Sounds to me like the players just want to play a video game. You are probably better off without this particular batch.

 

[Gilladian]

So you're saying YOU bought a module and offered to run it online for your friends. They agreed, THEN came to you and said they wanted to change the rules of how the game works, so they'd never die during a game? And then when you said, no, you'd allow resurrection but not a reset after deaths, they called YOU names?

That's weird... and rude. And wrong of them. I think they owe you an apology. But you'll probably never get it...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Wow.

Sounds like some serious entitlement issues.

My personal stance on this kind of thing is that the DM makes the rules. Anyone who doesn't want to play by the DM's rules is free to play something/somewhere else. If nobody wants to play by those rules, the DM has just been saved countless hours of prepwork, and may now enjoy the status of being a player.

And as for your rule in particular? That's how I play things. That's how the other 5 guys who regularly DM in my current group have run their campaigns.

I wouldn't call it hardcore, either.

 

[Dausuul]

Whoo. This thread is a big ol' stack of barrels full of napalm and dynamite, with a lot of dangling live wires overhead spitting sparks.

(That is to say: "Atlas Shrugged," and Ayn Rand's work in general, is a hugely contentious topic, and intensely political, and has been cited as inspiration by some fairly big names in American politics. Not your fault, but pretty much any discussion involving Rand is a flame war waiting to happen.)

Having read AS, I'm really not clear on how it's relevant in your situation. "Atlas" has some prescriptions for how one should live and behave, but as far as I can recall it's silent on the subject of death mechanics in RPGs. I think the player was just being a jerk and grabbing for whatever in his mind carried the Weight of Authority, to claim it as justification for his position.

My suggestion: Tell him this is the game you're willing to run. If he doesn't want to play, that's his choice, but this is yours. And if he starts talking about "Atlas" again, tell him you haven't read it and you're not going to plow through a thousand-page tome just because he's not capable of putting together a coherent argument on his own. (Okay, maybe that last bit should be phrased a little more diplomatically... )

 

[Steel_Wind]

Whoo. This thread is a big ol' stack of barrels full of napalm and dynamite, with a lot of dangling live wires overhead spitting sparks.

(That is to say: "Atlas Shrugged," and Ayn Rand's work in general, is a hugely contentious topic, and intensely political, and has been cited as inspiration by some fairly big names in American politics. Not your fault, but pretty much any discussion involving Rand is a flame war waiting to happen.)

Agreed.

 

[nedjer]

Remove all risk to PCs - dull

Not trust you to give a well-played PC a break if it hangs well - trust deficit

Need I go on; I'd run out of different s. Can we have more s in here?

 

[Celebrim]

Wow.

Sounds like some serious entitlement issues.

Indeed. And ironicly, Ms. Rand would have a big problem with that. She'd also be pretty serious about an artist sticking to their artistic vision despite the criticism of detractors.

I don't think that Randian objectivism is at the heart of the complaints. If he throws the poorly understood objectivism at you, say you'd rather talk in real words than philosophy, but if they must get all artsy-fartsy quote Roark's speech from the movie version of The Fountainhead.

I'm not an Objectivist, but frankly, no player can dare criticize a game provider in Objectivist terms. If you aren't the creator of the game, you certainly have no right to constrain it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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

That said, I still remember picking up a novel by Mickey Spillane that had been endorsed by Ms. Rand.... Somehow I just had difficulty putting tough guy detective yarns into the Ayn Ran shaped box that I was familiar with.

The Auld Grump