Pretty soon these people will be admonishing you for polymorphing your own character into annother type of creature, calling it "Bilogical Appropriation".

Hilarity ensues when your wizard is sued for defamation because he shape-shifted into a troll.

Some of this stupid smacks of storygamer infestation.

The horrible DM must be prevented from taking away player power! Consent being just a new ploy. Remember how prior it was all about "Tha Fiction!" my precious.

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.  It's two different things.  Ask him about his experiences with traditional D&D.  He's part of the group of folks who had a bad DM once that hurt his fee-fees, so now he wants DMs to be controlled or restricted by "the rules" as much as players.  Scratch any 3e or 4e fan and you'll usually find someone with a similar story.  It's like deciding that, because you met a cop who abused his authority, the entire profession of "police officer" needs to be removed (well... seems there are a lot of people nowadays that fall for this same lousy logic).

Sure, a lousy GM will have his players leave (I've done it).  But that doesn't make the definition of "lousy DM" mean "A DM that does something consistent with the setting that the players don't like."  If you agree to play Ravenloft, your character might get charmed or turned into a vampire.  It's part of the expectations of the setting...

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

He's only a GM if he has players.

No shit moron.  How long did it take for you to figure that out?

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM
The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

To me, this sounds legalistic and combative. Like the GM is holding the players to a contract, rather than trying to have fun with them.

Campaigns often don't go in ways that can be foreseen at the start. There are all sorts of different directions it can go in. If I'm a player, I might sign up with a GM, but later have a problem with how he is doing things. If I'm a GM, especially in a campaign, I generally play with my friends. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" with them. I'll check in with them about how they're enjoying things. We all might enjoy a change of direction for the campaign.

Having played since I was a pre-teen in the 1970s, I've had plenty of cases where I was a bad GM or a bad player - as well as dealing with bad GMs and/or players. Some people are assholes that I'd never want to play with. On the other hand, some people are OK, but they have a bad day and/or bad ideas, and sometimes they mess up - making the game unfun. If so, other people at the table should call them on their bullshit. We correct, and the game goes on.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM
Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

Those aren't the only two possibilities, though. Sometimes the GM can pull shit on the players and claim it's just enforcing in-game reality. Conversely, sometimes the players can pull shit that makes the game unfun for the GM. They can talk about it and correct.

Me as DM: "YOU FAILED. The ritual proceeds as planned. Make a save vs Spell at -3"

There, now it's in hands of the dice. No DM bias. No whiney players. Just chance. Fate. Done.

Quote from: blackstone on September 25, 2023, 03:15:14 PM
Me as DM: "YOU FAILED. The ritual proceeds as planned. Make a save vs Spell at -3"

There, now it's in hands of the dice. No DM bias. No whiney players. Just chance. Fate. Done.

For a lot of things yes. For player stupidity or entitlement? No need for dice, they deserve all the misery they get.

GM: there are about 100 cannibalistic orcs in the fortress, and your party's reconnaissance indicates about 30% are on duty at any given point in time.

Player: Fuck it, I'm level 10 I can take some orcs. I'll charge inside and kill them all.

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

Player: Nope - I charge inside while giving a warcry. They'll cower before me.

GM:As you charge into the entrance your world turns upside down and there is suddenly agonizing pain at several locations in and on your body. In your haste, you failed to notice (or even state you were going to be in the lookout for) that the floor looked a bit odd. You've fallen into a spiked pit taking ::roll roll roll:: 8 pts of damage. The orcs at the entrance guard post have come over to the edge of the pit and are standing over your impaled body and are slowly stabbing you with their spears, over and over ::roll roll:: for 16 pts of damage, while their compatriots begin ringing alarm bells and, oh btw, that burning sensation you're feeling is because they've also opened the floodgates for the pit cleaning system and acid is pouring from the top drain opening of the pit and spilling all over you ::rolly roll:: for 6 pts of damage. Roll for initiative.

Player: That's not fair you didn't even give me a chance! No way are orcs able to do that. I should have automatically known there was a trap there!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 12:04:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.

He's doing neither.

He's countering the point with his own nuanced and demonstrably accurate views that don't even have to exist as exclusive either/or propositions because both can be true at the same time. The GM IS the "Master" ("Yes, massa!") and has the final say in his own campaign. And he is also only the "Master" if he actually has players, which will leave if he's a piece of shit--meaning that he also has to take their wishes into account, at least to some extend.

And you dumb fucks are attacking him and reading shit into his posts that he never said (such as wanting DMs to be controlled by the rules), cuz he stepped into your two minutes hate and nuance cannot exist in this right-wing SJW forum. Cuz you can't stand people who get in the way of you mindlessly raging against hypothetical snowflakes that might exist somewhere in the internet (likely not playing TTRPGs or pushing their moronic views anywhere other than their empty online posts or your own politically obsessed imaginations). So anyone who offers some sort of alternate take must be some kind of SJW by proxy or ultimately want something that must be derided as idiotic despite being demonstrably true.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 03:54:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 12:04:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.

He's doing neither.

He's countering the point with his own nuanced and demonstrably accurate views that don't even have to exist as exclusive either/or propositions because both can be true at the same time. The GM IS the "Master" ("Yes, massa!") and has the final say in his own campaign. And he is also only the "Master" if he actually has players, which will leave if he's a piece of shit--meaning that he also has to take their wishes into account, at least to some extend.

And you dumb fucks are attacking him and reading shit into his posts that he never said (such as wanting DMs to be controlled by the rules), cuz he stepped into your two minutes hate and nuance cannot exist in this right-wing SJW forum. Cuz you can't stand people who get in the way of you mindlessly raging against hypothetical snowflakes that might exist somewhere in the internet (likely not playing TTRPGs or pushing their moronic views anywhere other than their empty online posts or your own politically obsessed imaginations). So anyone who offers some sort of alternate take must be some kind of SJW by proxy or ultimately want something that must be derided as idiotic despite being demonstrably true.

Found Chris24601's alt...

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 03:52:55 PM

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 03:52:55 PM

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that.  The GM offers the player a chance to avoid an obvious tactical blunder. 

The GM probably spent a couple hours of prescious time designing that Orc Lair so the players could have the enjoyment of defeating it.  Now one player potentially has to sit out the session because of their foolishness. 

Also, maybe the GM was giving the foolish player enough rope to hang themself with?

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM


WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that. 

Wrong it isn't the job of a GM to coach players over in your face, obvious shit.  Only if you're GMing children.  Not adults.  You've been GMing too many children posing as adults.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 07:08:57 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM


WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that. 

Wrong it isn't the job of a GM to coach players over in your face, obvious shit.  Only if you're GMing children.  Not adults.  You've been GMing too many children posing as adults.

I believe in giving players a "is that your final answer?" moment before bringing down rods from God.