De canistro textrinum

[sabs]

reminds me of the dick dm days and weird player days where some nerd with no self esteem would have their 1 character that they played in every campaign, and they'd show up at some table, and the equally self esteem deprived DM would murder that character with glee. He would then hold out his hand and demand the character sheet.

There would be crying, and blubering, and maniacal laughter. Said character sheet would then either get torn up, or put in the gm's pile of shame.

Ah.. good times.

[Fuchs]

That's basic human nature. If the GM is doing most of the work of getting and keeping a game going, then he has usually more of a say about it. And it's not too stupid either - if the GM doesn't like the game or playstyle, odds are he won't do a good job at it. I sometimes wonder how many of those posters here who seem to think they can actually force a GM to play a game he doesn't want to "because the rules say so".

It's less so "bullying the DM with rules" bit, than moreso ensuring he's being a fair arbiter. Since that is one of his roles as DM, if he' not following a mode of fairness, then the pretense of a "game" is lost, and isn't much point to using 3rd edition D&D rules, if they're gonna go ignored. As well that it's the players game too, and shouldn't be forced to play simply to the DM's fantasy, pending on what was agreed beforehand of course. Though if a DM isn't running a game he wants to run, then its at ends why hes running it in the first place (though I know a DM that runs a game doesn't seem to want to anymore).

Even Gygaxian DM's follow the rules, liking to use actual existing material to challenge and destroy their PCs, otherwise fiat would make it too "easy" (thusly not a real exercise in challenge) for them.

You misunderstand. It's not about being a fair arbiter, it is more basic than that. I am talking about people who honestly believe that even if the GM hates Planescape, they can get a campaign on Mechanus going just by casting plane shift.

That's not how it works. If there's only one guy willing to GM, then what he wants matters far more than what a single player want. And if he hates Mechanus, then you either get a "you're on Mechanus, yadda yadda yadda, you're back" lackluster "adventure", some GM fiat reason why you cannot go to Mechanus, a less fiat reason why you need to leave at once, or a "Fuck it, guys! I am not GMing that shit, someone else can do it. No one? Ok, so you don't go to Mechanus and we go on, or we start a new campaign."

And you can replace "Mechanus" with a lot of stuff, from running an Empire to directing vast armies to creating your own line of half-dragon/half-demon wizards - if the GM doesn't want to GM it, you don't get it, or at best, get some half-hearted version of it that the GM tries to ignore whenever possible.

[Aryxbez]

Ah, well it sounds more like the PC is trying to construct part of his own path and story in this world, and not just what the DM wants to do. That is, unless these actions are getting in the way of the experience of everyone else in the group, or they're fine with it, then DM should make some compromise. Instead of being lazy, or denying the player building an empire of half dragon alligators on Mechanus or whatever, should see it more as an opportunity. A way to expand the horizon of the DM's story in a way didn't realize before, and perhaps way to make his campaign bit more interesting for those involved.

If a player truly has some unexpected desire, he should communicate such with the group/DM beforehand, so that it can be accommodated, or if simply wanted a different kind of game, should've said that in the first place before the campaign began. Though I imagine gets more complicated when its a desire that got created later as the game progressed. Which perhaps as part of ever changing tastes, game could be expanded to fit that, and if not, hopefully there are good reasons at play for such.

Besides, most games are generic anyway, and would likely benefit from these kind of odd ball desires, spicing things up, that and Manual of the Planes seems like it'd make for a better starting setting to boot.

[Fuchs]

Ah, well it sounds more like the PC is trying to construct part of his own path and story in this world, and not just what the DM wants to do. That is, unless these actions are getting in the way of the experience of everyone else in the group, or they're fine with it, then DM should make some compromise. Instead of being lazy, or denying the player building an empire of half dragon alligators on Mechanus or whatever, should see it more as an opportunity. A way to expand the horizon of the DM's story in a way didn't realize before, and perhaps way to make his campaign bit more interesting for those involved.

If a player truly has some unexpected desire, he should communicate such with the group/DM beforehand, so that it can be accommodated, or if simply wanted a different kind of game, should've said that in the first place before the campaign began. Though I imagine gets more complicated when its a desire that got created later as the game progressed. Which perhaps as part of ever changing tastes, game could be expanded to fit that, and if not, hopefully there are good reasons at play for such.

Besides, most games are generic anyway, and would likely benefit from these kind of odd ball desires, spicing things up, that and Manual of the Planes seems like it'd make for a better starting setting to boot.

It's not about spicing up a boring campaign, it's not about the GM being lazy, or whatever. It's about some people thinking the wishes of the GM do not matter as long as an action is covered by the rules.

Let me put up a more extreme example: Say the player(s) want to "run a brothel" or "start slaving" (or both together). Only someone out of touch with reality would think this would work if the GM does not want to run that.

[shadzar]

reminds me of the dick dm days and weird player days where some nerd with no self esteem would have their 1 character that they played in every campaign, and they'd show up at some table, and the equally self esteem deprived DM would murder that character with glee. He would then hold out his hand and demand the character sheet.

There would be crying, and blubering, and maniacal laughter. Said character sheet would then either get torn up, or put in the gm's pile of shame.

Ah.. good times.

that just sounds like shitty people, has nothing really to do with D&D.

also people that probably arent smart enough to play D&D, so lets tear the analogy apart.

1- why is this person only playing one character? is it their dirz'zt clone? is it a campaign? is it the same DM for every game?

2- why would a DM request a char sheet unless to looka t it. it doesnt belong to the DM. the DM should keep his own copy, always has been that way. them something show up on the player copy that is being used that doesnt belong, you start questioning the player about the thing that shows up. maybe a miscalculation on the DM copy for something, maybe the player actually jsuty wrote stuff down.

3- why, if this is their "fave" character does a player have concern, IF the DM is "loaning" out "official" character sheets, he purchased (already dumb, see 4), does the player not have a copy written somewhere else? regular notebook paper existed as long as D&D and pencils work on more than char sheets.

4- why would a DM be buying char sheets unless he was playing, why isnt the player buying their own? had a DM try that with me once when i had to miss a few3 session, so he could "play the character" in one of his "anyone that comes can play" games. i jsut told him my sheets stay with me cause i might want to use the character, and i dont loan the persona of my character out. he wants a copy to run, then he can have the stats but not the name and copy it, but i wouldnt be returning to the game. who really did this "collect the sheets" thing at the end of the game, and kept them until the next game?

again, this anecdote is a good bit of humor, but seems only that in light of all the truths. it has to be a very corner case, or just scraping the bottom of the barrel of players and DMs. either way, completely hyperbolic and an unusable example of anything except "we had shitty games and everyone played badly".

really sounds like propaganda from the Jack Chick era, against D&D.

so did you see or participate in this, or just hearsay?

[sabs]

Clearly Shadzar, you did not play D&D in the 80's and 90's

[shadzar]

Ah, well it sounds more like the PC is trying to construct part of his own path and story in this world, and not just what the DM wants to do. That is, unless these actions are getting in the way of the experience of everyone else in the group, or they're fine with it, then DM should make some compromise. Instead of being lazy, or denying the player building an empire of half dragon alligators on Mechanus or whatever, should see it more as an opportunity. A way to expand the horizon of the DM's story in a way didn't realize before, and perhaps way to make his campaign bit more interesting for those involved.

If a player truly has some unexpected desire, he should communicate such with the group/DM beforehand, so that it can be accommodated, or if simply wanted a different kind of game, should've said that in the first place before the campaign began. Though I imagine gets more complicated when its a desire that got created later as the game progressed. Which perhaps as part of ever changing tastes, game could be expanded to fit that, and if not, hopefully there are good reasons at play for such.

Besides, most games are generic anyway, and would likely benefit from these kind of odd ball desires, spicing things up, that and Manual of the Planes seems like it'd make for a better starting setting to boot.

It's not about spicing up a boring campaign, it's not about the GM being lazy, or whatever. It's about some people thinking the wishes of the GM do not matter as long as an action is covered by the rules.

Let me put up a more extreme example: Say the player(s) want to "run a brothel" or "start slaving" (or both together). Only someone out of touch with reality would think this would work if the GM does not want to run that.

yeah, the players are presented with a world, and TRY anything, but only DO what the DM allows.

that planescape bit.. i HATE planescape, i wouldnt allow it. see the DM would have the right to say the shift goes to somewhere else, because the whatever doesnt exist in THIS DMs universe. just like when any DM said Electrum doesnt exist. but that wasnt a problem cause it was annoying for all. the Ansalon DM keeping the gold standard, doesnt mean the PCs can return Steel Bits. the way they change the game, is find a new DM if it is that importnat, not try to connive and bully this one into changing what they wish to deal with.

the players get to shape their story within the confines of the DMs world.

people trying to do silly stuff reminds me of that "why isnt NO good enough" thread on ENWorld.

player likes the DMs game, they play in it. they decide they want something else the DM isnt offering, they leave and go somewhere else.

you dont expect to walk into McDonald's and get them in any way to sell you a Whopper do you? or Burger King and get them to sell you a BigMac?

DM doesnt want to roleplay sex scenes or even the brothel, and most dont they sideline and handwave it like: "you character wanders off for the night and spends 20gp and will wake up the next morning", nothing you do is going to get them to listen to you roleplay out a sex scene with a hooker.

so even if the entire group decides to follow planehopper, it doesnt mean the DM has to change if he doesnt like planescape. it gores something like this, and with no animosity form the DM: "you all shift to another plane of existence. well it was fun, let me know when you are done on that plane and we play again", and the DM packs up and leaves to do something that interests him. the players and characters part in this story was not shaped, but ended.

[shadzar]

Clearly Shadzar, you did not play D&D in the 80's and 90's

yeah i did. just didnt play with bad players, be they players or DMs, nor condone their actions.

civility, and no childish antics, so i didnt play with toddlers that needed babysitting of ANY age.

[Maxus]

Clearly Shadzar, you did not play D&D in the 80's and 90's

+2