Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686049Sure, but who decides which people are being "unreasonable"? Being a good GM means choosing a game that the group doesn't hate. The GM needs to be reasonable too.

Its not a matter of hate. Its a matter of stubborness.

As for who decides what is reasonable, sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not.

When the gm proposes a system and setting that everyone at the table is happy with, but one player says 'no' what do you do?

The more stubborn and 'unreasonable' individuals are, the harder it is to select a system and setting for the campaign.

We are a group of gms and trade off fairly often the gm spot.

Quote from: Blackhand;686052Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

That's what it seems like, or there wouldn't be an argument.

If you look at Pathfinder and 3e as different games, both of which simply exist as larger buoys in a sea of gaming options...well the argument loses it's relevance.

This particular group plays a great variety of games. The problem is stubborness about which one to use when we change over.

Two things are relevant in this discussion: Pathfinder Beginner game and OGL.
If DDNext is a problem for Paizo, they will immediately launch a public playtest based on the Pathfinder beginner box game targeting towrads the creation of a modular game that will aim to please anyone from OD&D to 4e fans and it will be OGL.

You didn't really ask me, Bill...but I'm going to share this anyway.

Quote from: Bill;686058Its not a matter of hate. Its a matter of stubborness.

Are your players being stubborn?  About changing systems in general or only when specific concepts get dropped on the table?

Quote from: Bill;686058As for who decides what is reasonable, sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not.

In our group, I'd like to say it's a democracy.  We vote.  Yet...*continued below*

Quote from: Bill;686058When the gm proposes a system and setting that everyone at the table is happy with, but one player says 'no' what do you do?

The vote occurs, and if that player is still unhappy we revert from democracy to what the group calls "benevolent dictatorship" - that is, the GM is empowered by the group and a single player who says no can leave at his leisure.  Players come and go all the time from our large pool, and it's a low point now - I have seven active players for Mage.  I find myself welcoming this smaller group for this game, so it's really a win-win.

Quote from: Bill;686058The more stubborn and 'unreasonable' individuals are, the harder it is to select a system and setting for the campaign.

The more stubborn and unreasonable individuals at your table are, you can politely inform them that the group is playing this game.  If they don't want to play this game, they don't have to, and if they want to play another game they are more than welcome to write some adventures and run a game themselves.  If that's not an option for some reason, that's on your stubborn individual who doesn't seem to want to play games anyway.

Quote from: Bill;686058We are a group of gms and trade off fairly often the gm spot.

This works really well, and is the model my group follows.  In this regard, we don't have the "stubborn and unreasonable" fellow you are speaking of.  It wouldn't work out for him at the table, and depending on his personality it might just be a bad night for that guy.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

You think playing D&D, just not your preferred version, is torture?

Shoot, I'll play anything if I know it's a good GM.  Period.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly.

For one-shot evening games, "gaming martyr" types are tolerable.  (Some may constantly gripe about how the game and/or system sucks, during the entire one-shot session).

Though more generally in practice, I've found that "gaming martyr" types are the worst to play long term rpg games with.  Especially if they're doing it in return for a previous "favor" you did for them.

I've played in games where the "gaming martyr" spent entire sessions where they were "tuned out" and spending all their time watching CSI or Criminal Minds reruns on the telly.  (Especially if the game is played at the martyr's home or apartment).  Typically the martyr played a one-dimension character which didn't require much thinking, such as a fighter which only had to swing a sword and not much else.

Quote from: Mistwell;686091You think playing D&D, just not your preferred version, is torture?

Shoot, I'll play anything if I know it's a good GM.  Period.

No. I'm saying that playing a game you strongly dislike can be torture if it's done regularly. As an example, I strongly disliked 4e after DMing it....so I have refused to play or run the game since 2008.

If someone wanted to run a session or two of 4e for me, then that's fine....but it's not something I wish to make a habit of doing, because it would eventually make me unhappy. I'd be there to hang out with friends, but I'd have absolutely no mental investment in the game. If this is a game you like, then you would not want someone with my mindset present.

This isn't necessarily bad. Friends do not have to share all the same interests. Such is life.

Quote from: ggroyFor one-shot evening games, "gaming martyr" types are tolerable. (Some may constantly gripe about how the game and/or system sucks, during the entire one-shot session).

Though more generally in practice, I've found that "gaming martyr" types are the worst to play long term rpg games with. Especially if they're doing it in return for a previous "favor" you did for them.

I've played in games where the "gaming martyr" spent entire sessions where they were "tuned out" and spending all their time watching CSI or Criminal Minds reruns on the telly. (Especially if the game is played at the martyr's home or apartment). Typically the martyr played a one-dimension character which didn't require much thinking, such as a fighter which only had to swing a sword and not much else.

The only games I feel like a "gaming martyr" for are 4e and FATAL. Beyond that, I'm open.

Quote from: Blackhand;686052Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

It's  not a belief so much as a practicality. My group meets once a month (and even that is tough sometimes). The amount of time away from the table the players are interested in devoting to RPGs is nil. So playing something everyone knows and is comfortable with is pretty important. We don't want to spend most of our very limited gaming time learning new systems.

Quote from: Blackhand;686062You didn't really ask me, Bill...but I'm going to share this anyway.

  Are your players being stubborn?  About changing systems in general or only when specific concepts get dropped on the table?

In our group, I'd like to say it's a democracy.  We vote.  Yet...*continued below*

The vote occurs, and if that player is still unhappy we revert from democracy to what the group calls "benevolent dictatorship" - that is, the GM is empowered by the group and a single player who says no can leave at his leisure.  Players come and go all the time from our large pool, and it's a low point now - I have seven active players for Mage.  I find myself welcoming this smaller group for this game, so it's really a win-win.

The more stubborn and unreasonable individuals at your table are, you can politely inform them that the group is playing this game.  If they don't want to play this game, they don't have to, and if they want to play another game they are more than welcome to write some adventures and run a game themselves.  If that's not an option for some reason, that's on your stubborn individual who doesn't seem to want to play games anyway.

This works really well, and is the model my group follows.  In this regard, we don't have the "stubborn and unreasonable" fellow you are speaking of.  It wouldn't work out for him at the table, and depending on his personality it might just be a bad night for that guy.

When we change campaigns, people get stubborn about what they will play, and no one agrees, and what people will play, is mutually exclusive.

We don't like to exclude anyone, so thats not really a option.

The group is theoretically coming around to the 'gm gets to pick the system'. We wills ee how that works soon. Settings are not really a problem.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686110No. I'm saying that playing a game you strongly dislike can be torture if it's done regularly. As an example, I strongly disliked 4e after DMing it....so I have refused to play or run the game since 2008.

I can surely see refusing to run a system you don't like.  But if you like the GM, and your friends want to play it, you won't even play it? That I don't understand.  A good GM can make any system work for the group of player's he has.  

QuoteIf someone wanted to run a session or two of 4e for me, then that's fine....but it's not something I wish to make a habit of doing, because it would eventually make me unhappy. I'd be there to hang out with friends, but I'd have absolutely no mental investment in the game. If this is a game you like, then you would not want someone with my mindset present.

Maybe change your mindset to not be so fucking childish?

QuoteThis isn't necessarily bad. Friends do not have to share all the same interests. Such is life.

Your interest is getting together with friends to game.  You pouting over the system being used, despite having a good GM and good friends to game with, is your issue, not anyone elses.  You're incredibly lucky to have those things, and you're shitting it all away out of petulance.

Quote from: Bill;686136We don't like to exclude anyone, so thats not really a option.

We used to ascribe to this as well.

Yet I've come to learn that it's not the group that's excluding them, they themselves are the ones excluding themselves from the group's activity.

Quote from: Mistwell;686155I can surely see refusing to run a system you don't like.  But if you like the GM, and your friends want to play it, you won't even play it? That I don't understand.  A good GM can make any system work for the group of player's he has.  



Maybe change your mindset to not be so fucking childish?



Your interest is getting together with friends to game.  You pouting over the system being used, despite having a good GM and good friends to game with, is your issue, not anyone elses.  You're incredibly lucky to have those things, and you're shitting it all away out of petulance.

Lighten up, White Knight. The world is not all about you and your precious butthurt.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686181Lighten up, White Knight. The world is not all about you and your precious butthurt.

I always know when I make you uncomfortable...you come out with these non sequitur rote responses.  I'm not butthurt over anything...it's not my group or game, and I'm not involved in any way.  And who am I white knighting there, your group for not having the privileged of having your entitled ass playing with them? Hardly.

Naw, I must have hit a nerve.  This has been an issue for you with your group in the past, hasn't it? They moved on to a system you didn't like and you threw a hissy fit, didn't you?

Quote from: Haffrung;685376Next will be a different game with a different focus - far less crunchy. So Paizo only needs to worry if a less crunchy version of D&D proves more popular or accessible to new players, and chokes off the supply of new players to Pathfinder.

It can't be that different of a game from 3e/Pathfinder.

That's what got them into trouble when they went to 4e!

Quote from: tanstaafl48;685379Next succeeded is not inherently a problem or even necessarily a relevant factor for Paizo (and vice versa), especially if they're designed to appeal to different groups.

I don't think that 5e will be aimed to a different group,  it will be trying to fix the epic mistake of 4e.

Only the most fanatical edition warrior would not concede that 3e has its long term play issues...

4e was supposedly the answer to those issues, but it missed the mark badly. And the player base did not follow the official version of D&D – they stayed with the version that even with all its issues still felt like D&D even though it had a different logo on the book.

Wotc and Pazio are in direct competition.

 Yes the overall player base can be grown, but make no mistake; they are competing for the same general group of players.

And if 5e does what 4e should have...  Then Pazio will have to react to the new "official" version of D&D.

.

Quote from: Jaeger;686190It can't be that different of a game from 3e/Pathfinder.

That's what got them into trouble when they went to 4e!



I don't think that 5e will be aimed to a different group,  it will be trying to fix the epic mistake of 4e.

Only the most fanatical edition warrior would not concede that 3e has its long term play issues...

4e was supposedly the answer to those issues, but it missed the mark badly. And the player base did not follow the official version of D&D – they stayed with the version that even with all its issues still felt like D&D even though it had a different logo on the book.

Wotc and Pazio are in direct competition.

 Yes the overall player base can be grown, but make no mistake; they are competing for the same general group of players.

And if 5e does what 4e should have...  Then Pazio will have to react to the new "official" version of D&D.

.

Keep an eye on 13th Age. It may be a serious contender.