Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[shadzar]

While this maybe within the GM's right, I don't believe that it is an acceptable response in an environment where the table is trying to establish a social contract,

AHA! Here is the, at least one, flaw.

The social contract was not MADE after you have a GM, but upon picking on and agreeing for them to be the GM.

You already established a social contract at that time and handed the keys over to the GM to drive the Fun Wagon.

You are welcome to get off the fun wagon at any time, I would suggest before it is in motion or at speed. But no single player has the right to ask for the keys back, so long as other players are enjoying the ride.

I see two camps here now.

Camp A has the "social contract" established when the GM becomes the GM. Sort of like borrowing money from a loan shark.

Camp B is constantly adding runners and fine text to the contract as the game progresses. Sort of like refinancing a home loan.

In Camp A you made your resolve and decision up front to accept the activites it offers. In Camp B you are deciding as you go what activities every at the camp will take part in. Both camps however can decide if they wish to return home form their camping trip at anytime. Just don't blame the campground for providing exactly what it offered, when you chose the wrong camp to go to.

We've got email. Phones, too. And admittedly, I like to game with people that I would (and do) hang around with when I'm not gaming with them. Again, I really value communication as the grease that keeps gaming cogs turning. If a game didn't allow for that -- if it were with people I wouldn't hang out with or give my email address to otherwise, or who have no interest talking to me outside of actual game night -- I would expect a number of problems to arise.

I have "gone off" on tech at the gaming table in another thread, goggle should return it if searched and the have ENWorld off their "may harm your computer" list.

The thing is players need to learn when the conversation is over. As others have said, when to stop badgering someone else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've gamed in a suit and tie too! It was awesome! I had no time between fusangite's Gamma World 1e Escape From The Embassy Suites game and True Dungeon and the ENnies and the strip club so I just wore my suit and tie to the whole shooting match. I was pronounced, "The best dressed man to ever complete True Dungeon!"

One wonders what you would have been voted had you started at the strip club.










I mean....you were working there.....weren't you?

 

[Rel]

AHA! Here is the, at least one, flaw.

The social contract was not MADE after you have a GM, but upon picking on and agreeing for them to be the GM.

You already established a social contract at that time and handed the keys over to the GM to drive the Fun Wagon.

You are welcome to get off the fun wagon at any time, I would suggest before it is in motion or at speed. But no single player has the right to ask for the keys back, so long as other players are enjoying the ride.

I see two camps here now.

Camp A has the "social contract" established when the GM becomes the GM. Sort of like borrowing money from a loan shark.

Camp B is constantly adding runners and fine text to the contract as the game progresses. Sort of like refinancing a home loan.

In Camp A you made your resolve and decision up front to accept the activites it offers. In Camp B you are deciding as you go what activities every at the camp will take part in. Both camps however can decide if they wish to return home form their camping trip at anytime. Just don't blame the campground for providing exactly what it offered, when you chose the wrong camp to go to.

So if I rolled my car payment into my home loan and then default on the payment then I can forget getting my keys back when the Fun Wagon gets repossessed while I'm at camp, right?

 

[shadzar]

I knew your posts would devolve into basically "I hate WotC and 4e and I'll ban any of the horrible crap they produce I want" arguement.

Obviously, since I have banned things since Menzter Basic and AD&D 1st edition, it must be because I hate WotC and 4e.

Assassins...banned!

Gnomes happens to be an example of the designers getting to say what is allowed int he game, but the GM does not.

When the designers don't have it in the book it is ok, but a GM that doesn't allow something that IS in a book, is BAD, BAD GM, shame on you!

 

[Rel]

Obviously, since I have banned things since Menzter Basic and AD&D 1st edition, it must be because I hate WotC and 4e.

Assassins...banned!

Gnomes happens to be an example of the designers getting to say what is allowed int he game, but the GM does not.

When the designers don't have it in the book it is ok, but a GM that doesn't allow something that IS in a book, is BAD, BAD GM, shame on you!

Why did you ban assassins?

 

[Cyronax]

Why did you ban assassins?

Because they are not fun. Only fun things allowed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Shad. RC.

Simple questions: Where in the Abyss are you getting the impression that I personally condone badgering the GM for his reasons? Where are you getting the impression that anyone condones badgering the GM for his reasons?

To use your phrase, RC, I think you're both doing quite a bit of "reader filtering" of this conversation.

 

[shadzar]

shadzar:

It this: When I get a book by Random Douchebag X, I can read what it´s all about, get my justification right there and can formulate a way on how I want to play.

If I join a Game by Random Douchebag Shadzar and he tells me "No. And I don´t tell you why, get lost if you ask again", than I don´t know anything usefull, can´t formulate a plan, can´t really imerse into play.

X can take something away because his workings are transparent and easy to follow, S just acts like a douchebag.

Sorry if this is getting topersonal, but like one shouts into the wood and so on ..

Completely understand your use of the terms, not too personal.

Here is the thing, however:

When the DM is running Adventure Y written by Random Douchebag X, you do NOT get to read it, such as you do NOT get to read Adventure Shadzar-A written by Random Douchebag Shadzar.

Both douchebags have designed adventures without 100% account of the players in a particular group, but the DM of the group, in this case Random Douchbag Shadzar, is more likely to offer things that suits the groups needs than Random Douchebag X that wrote Adventure Y, AND Random Douchebag Shadzar will be the one having to fix and make work things in either case, YET, Random Douchebag Shadzar takes all the grief for the work, while Random Douchebag X gets none.

Even when things are taken out of the core rules, there is a reason, but you don't always see it right away as even a PoL setting doesn't include anything to really play with except pitting a coliseum style of play against the PCs, where the monsters are jsut thrown at them.

Published "campaign settings", and homebrew worlds are no different, but the DM is faulted for taking things out to make his setting design work, yet somehow people more readily accept some settings published with a corporate logo on it.

I find that odd behavior.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I hope the above explains it, if not, ask me and I will try to make it make more sense, best I can unles someone beats or has beaten me to it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can see two potential situations here:

Imagine that Poe, Lovecraft, Burroughs, and Howard get together to play D&D. The first thing they do is decide who will DM. They are all good DMs, and they share a lot of things in common, but not everything. For instance, Burroughs loves a good non-human PC from time to time, but none of the others are willing to do this. Lovecraft and Poe run fun games, but the PCs are always screwed at the end. Howard likes to run these nifty games that seem like "kick in the door and take the stuff" at first glance, but are often much deeper than that. Everyone knows what the other is good at, and what the other likes to do, so they go into choosing a DM knowing that.

Burroughs might manage to get Howard to run a planetary romance romp, but it will be far from his best work.

Throw in another player.....lets call her Austin......and you might get questions about some of the base assumptions going on. After all, women in all of these DM's camps tend to be secondary characters (Howard is arguably the best of the lot), and there is a heck of a lot of violence and horror. Lovecraft's NPCs, frankly, have painful dialogue.

The reality is that, probably, Austin is a bad fit for the group (and vice versa). But there need be no rudeness on any side to establish that. Nor does Poe have to allow the optional Governess class into his campaign. (Mind you, Poe will allow it, if Austin keeps pushing it, but he'll make Austin wish she had not......)

In the second situation, across town, on the other side of Arkham, another DM has just completed the prep work to run a campaign, and he is setting out his shingle. Let's call this DM Tolkien. In Tolkien's world, you can play an elf, a halfling, a dwarf, or a human. He's starting the PCs near a rather backwater Shire so that they don't need too much of an infodump, and because exploring the world will be a large part of the campaign.

Bradley, Moorcock, and Zelazny all answer the ads at the local game store, and meet at Tolkien's place to generate characters. This is the place to discuss what classes and races are available, and to ask why. And, if Tolkien is a good DM, he will have answers....even if those answers are "That's a secret of Middle Earth. You'll find out over the course of play, if you're lucky."

Moorcock, however, decides that he doesn't like Tolkien's style. Yet, being an adult, he simply excuses himself from the process, no muss no fuss. Zelazny, though, is taken with the idea of playing plane-hopping champions, and keeps pestering Tolkien until he gets the boot. Cool, though, 'cause Moorcock is starting just that game.

If Tolkien wants to run a game with more than one player, he's either going to have to bend, or find someone else to recruit.......

 

[shadzar]

If memory serves, lots of folks thought that the designers removing things required a response in times past, whether it was the transition from 1e to 2e, or the transition from 3e to 4e.

Editing is not easy across pages, so hope this isnt piled post after post after post after post of responses from me....and this thread is moving quite fast...

But the designers don't have to give them, and when they don't they are still accept and the rules played with happily.

Gary actually had to do some explaining for things in 1st edition and why they were changed even though it set out to be compatible-enough with D&D, but set as a different game.

That was really the first I recall of it, while I am sure many asked why things differed between all the D&D versions that came prior.

In either case, you don't call a designer right away to ask them, maybe you can call customer support now to do so if you want some made up answer jsut as good as your GMs, but without your players being taken into consideration, as to why some things are done the way they are. But people are always questioning the DMs.

Sort of back to that whole trust issue I guess.

The people holding the copyright are trusted emphatically, while the GM is questioned for making, at items, ANY change or omission.

(That last sentence hopefully also answers the previous thing for you Rel. or was it Umbran?)

Why did you ban assassins?

One trick ponies paid for a single job don't thematically fit with an adventuring party, and when they take other "jobs" while part of the group, they can cause WAY too many problems for the group.

And don't roll your car into your house, or you will likely be doing a LOT more camping than you had planned.