• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

FoolishOwl

Registered User
Validated User
I was playing on a Neverwinter Nights persistent world, that was run by a team of DM/admins. They'd added some new members to that team, and they'd worked up an ambitious plan to relaunch it, following a wipe. In particular, one DM asked for character concept submissions, and then worked up a network of relationships for about a hundred different PCs, to serve as the start for several overlapping narratives. The one condition was that they all had to be new characters. He really did an amazing job of it; I'm more impressed now thinking about it in retrospect.

One player insisted on playing the same character as he had before. He kept complaining that his storyline hadn't been finished, in which his elven ranger reclaims the family moonblade. And he just kept whining about it, even as the DMs kept saying they had no intention of continuing that PCs storyline, that it hadn't had any connection to what anyone else was doing even before the wipe, and that there would never be a moonblade. Eventually, everyone just decided to ignore him. He kept playing for a few months until he finally quit.
 

Skaorn

Registered User
Validated User
If those are the alternatives, I don't see a single reason the group gets to say "Play something you won't enjoy instead so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves." They've got a choice too; they can tolerate what you get fun out of, or do without you. Otherwise they're expecting you to do the lifting for them, and I see no fashion in which that's a reasonable expectation.

No, I'm talking about people just skipping the game. And if you've never seen a game collapse because of too small a player pool, you aren't everyone.

I'm not just talking about your precise context.
So it's ok for one person to force the group to do what they want because it's the only that they have decided that there is only one way to have fun in a game, even if everyone is tired of it or wants to try something different? Why is one person's happiness more important than the other peoples'? Is it really reasonable to give ultimatums like "I love DnD but I won't play if I can't play an Elf, I don't care if you all want to try a setting where they don't exist"?

I have never seen a group survive long trying to put up with this kind of behavior. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of games survive the loss of players even if they were a small group as long as there are people interested in running and playing. I have seen many games collapse, but this is usually from life stuff and/or lack of interest. I have yet to witness a game collapse because they lost a player that was affecting everyone else's enjoyment of the game, particularly those so inflexible as what I'm trying to describe. My experience is they tend to bounce back even stronger. So, to answer your question, I'm perfectly happy to tell someone to not let the door hit them on the way out if they're only concerned with their own happiness and throw tantrums if they don't get what they want.

Edit: there are also options now that allow people to game when they live in areas with few gamers and you don't want to play what they do.

Also, my note wasn't directed at you, I just wanted to make sure no one popped up and thought I was talking about something like someone who doesn't want certain topics brought up in games or X cards.
 

Quantum Bob

Fear and Loathing
RPGnet Member
Validated User
So it's ok for one person to force the group to do what they want because it's the only that they have decided that there is only one way to have fun in a game, even if everyone is tired of it or wants to try something different? Why is one person's happiness more important than the other peoples'? Is it really reasonable to give ultimatums like "I love DnD but I won't play if I can't play an Elf, I don't care if you all want to try a setting where they don't exist"?
So instead people like me are supposed to show up to the game to not have fun? Is that it?
 

Skaorn

Registered User
Validated User
So instead people like me are supposed to show up to the game to not have fun? Is that it?
Well, for one thing I'm not sure you are the type of person I'm even talking about. You mentioned several examples that show that even if you want to play close combat characters you still have range to work with other players. For instance you apparently don't have a problem playing a character who isn't a Jedi in a SW game.

If you are the type of person I'm talking about, why is your enjoyment more important than anyone else's, though? If they are not doing what you like to do, why are you trying to game with them? You have Internet access so you should be able to find games you can play, even if they are play by post. What entitles you to have everyone else adapt to your needs if you aren't willing to meet their's? If you are looking for something specific, it's up to you to find it. You don't go into a Mexican restaurant and demand sushi (at least I hope).
 

Bruce Redux

Not flying or biting
Validated User
So instead people like me are supposed to show up to the game to not have fun? Is that it?
Um...yes? I can't play comfortably or happily with a bunch of my favorite people in the world, due to the way my constraints and hangups mesh with theirs, so this isn't theoretical to me. I'd like to game with them, and they'd like to game with me, but the fact is that accommodating my limits would really significantly diminish everyone else's enjoyment. So we talk about gaming happily, but don't try to shove me in at the cost of their recreation.
 

Quantum Bob

Fear and Loathing
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Um...yes? I can't play comfortably or happily with a bunch of my favorite people in the world, due to the way my constraints and hangups mesh with theirs, so this isn't theoretical to me.
This isn't theoretical for me either. I have dropped out of several campaigns that I was playing with really good friends, because their style and mine doesn't mesh* and really I was not having fun anymore. This summer we will be making another attempt (with me as the GM) but this is basically the last attempt to find common gaming ground.

* Didn't have anything to do with me always playing fighters, did have something to do with me not wanting to play with seeekrit evil PCs (or just ruthless motherfuckers)
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
So it's ok for one person to force the group to do what they want because it's the only that they have decided that there is only one way to have fun in a game, even if everyone is tired of it or wants to try something different? Why is one person's happiness more important than the other peoples'? Is it really reasonable to give ultimatums like "I love DnD but I won't play if I can't play an Elf, I don't care if you all want to try a setting where they don't exist"?
If the alternative is "You'll play anyway, even when you won't like it, because otherwise the rest of us can't have a game?" Damn right. You don't get to draft someone into something just so you can have fun.

I have never seen a group survive long trying to put up with this kind of behavior.
And I've never seen a group worth a damn that compelled people to play what they don't want to.

Edit: there are also options now that allow people to game when they live in areas with few gamers and you don't want to play what they do.
If you think its reliable putting a game together via VTTs without reference to other factors, its not.

As I say repeatedly, people who've never understood that there are any number of reasons for people to put up with some problems in their gaming either don't care enough about gaming to understand it (i.e. the relatively low bar some people have for "no gaming is better than bad gaming") or have been fortunate in their available gaming pools.
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Um...yes? I can't play comfortably or happily with a bunch of my favorite people in the world, due to the way my constraints and hangups mesh with theirs, so this isn't theoretical to me. I'd like to game with them, and they'd like to game with me, but the fact is that accommodating my limits would really significantly diminish everyone else's enjoyment. So we talk about gaming happily, but don't try to shove me in at the cost of their recreation.
See what he said again, Bruce. He asked if he's supposed to play in a way that he doesn't enjoy just so other people can. I can't imagine that you really meant to respond "yes" to that, and I think by the nature of your response you didn't understand what he asked. There's quite a difference between not forcing yourself into a game that's going to make it unpleasant for others, and being obliged to be in the game and play something you don't want to. The only complexity to the issue is when not being willing to do the latter ends up being a game killer (which it can certainly do; whether Skoarn has seen it or not, there are GMs who simply won't run a game below a certain size and that's all there is to it), but I still can't see how someone like QB is obliged to play in a way he doesn't want to just to make that work.
 
Top Bottom