Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5754563" data-attributes="member: 6957">Except that by his statement he never bothers finding what the players think - they do not matter... ever, remember? Except that the players never matter... ever.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. 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.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'  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. 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'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.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.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. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /> (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. Mmm, curry. Always good. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The Auld Grump, too tired to continue arguing anyway....</blockquote>

Verification