• 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.

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
I sympathize, I really do, but...there are times when gaming involving A, B, and C simply won't work.
Absolutely true. I just consider it not self-evidently true that the odd-man-out is automatically the villain in those situations. He can be (if he's deliberately trying to torpedo games he doesn't want to play in, as compared to the minimum-size issue where he can't help do so by not participating, but that's not particularly his intent and usually is an issue of what the GM or group as a whole requires).

(Not that there can't be all kinds of special cases; as occasionally comes up, there's an extra degree of additional power intrinsic in, as is sometimes the case, being the only player who has a practical place to host the game, but that still doesn't put special obligations on someone in that position).
 

Knaight

Registered User
Validated User
The model where there's a villain at all is wrong. It's not a matter of somebody being the bad guy, it's a matter of how different styles just don't mesh, and particularly narrow styles are particularly likely to mesh poorly with others. It's not unreasonable for the people without the narrow styles to find that frustrating, no villain involved.

This isn't just a gaming thing either. If you've got a lot of people who like to cook and eat and who all cook for each other, the one person with incredibly narrow tastes is going to be frustrating. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them; that doesn't mean they're a villain. It just means that they're the odd ones out and thus the locus of friction.
 

Skaorn

Registered User
Validated User
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.

And I've never seen a group worth a damn that compelled people to play what they don't want to.

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.
No, I'm saying that if you have specific needs that you require to be filled in order to have fun, then that is up to you to go find one that gives it to you. You should not try to force others to play your way so you can have fun at the cost of their's. If you are incapable of at least trying compromise or throw a tantrum because you aren't getting what you want, I know I will be happy to ask you to leave. No one is obligated to sacrifice their fun to make sure you have fun and if you don't think you will get enjoyment out of a game and are unwilling to even give it a try, then maybe try bowing out gracefully than drawing a line in the sand.

I hate GURPS as a system and yet I've recently been in two games and still had fun because of the people I was with. One person wanted to run using it, other people wanted to play the game, and I decided I'd rather hang out and play a system that I don't like. If I had decided there was no way I'd have fun then I would have said I pass, but I rarely feel the need to do that. I can and do put up with things I don't like in gaming but expect the same courtesy. If you are saying you don't have to give me that same courtesy because your fun is more important than mine or anyone else's at the table, then I have no problem telling you goodbye.
 

Quantum Bob

Fear and Loathing
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The model where there's a villain at all is wrong. It's not a matter of somebody being the bad guy, it's a matter of how different styles just don't mesh, and particularly narrow styles are particularly likely to mesh poorly with others.
Completely agree. If people can't find a compromise, they probably shouldn't game together. And since I don't compromise on my niche also means if I can't get into my favorite niche I'll just skip the game / campaign without throwing a tantrum or any such shit.

If you are incapable of at least trying compromise or throw a tantrum because you aren't getting what you want, I know I will be happy to ask you to leave.
Not all people who have narrow tastes throw a tantrum if they can't get their favorite toys (those who do can get fucked, because seriously, don't throw tantrums about gaming stuff).

I hate GURPS as a system and yet I've recently been in two games and still had fun because of the people I was with. One person wanted to run using it, other people wanted to play the game, and I decided I'd rather hang out and play a system that I don't like.
Whereas I would have just gone "have fun guys" and left. Or stayed for chatting if the group was ultra-casual.
 
Last edited:

Ice9

Still Frozen
RPGnet Member
Validated User
You should not try to force others to play your way so you can have fun at the cost of their's. If you are incapable of at least trying compromise or throw a tantrum because you aren't getting what you want, I know I will be happy to ask you to leave.
I think there's a miscommunication here. You seem to be thinking of a situation like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: How dare you? Pizza World is garbage because I can't play a Jedi in it! If you run that shit, I'm shutting this group down!

But AFAICT, what Strange Visitor is talking about is more like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: Not my cup of tea, but have fun. I'll see you for the one after.
GM: Hmm, that only leaves two players ... not enough. I guess Pizza World isn't happening.

Which is unfortunate, but not unreasonable on anyone's part.
 

Victim

Registered User
Validated User
I think there's a miscommunication here. You seem to be thinking of a situation like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: How dare you? Pizza World is garbage because I can't play a Jedi in it! If you run that shit, I'm shutting this group down!

But AFAICT, what Strange Visitor is talking about is more like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: Not my cup of tea, but have fun. I'll see you for the one after.
GM: Hmm, that only leaves two players ... not enough. I guess Pizza World isn't happening.

Which is unfortunate, but not unreasonable on anyone's part.
Well, I mean, if 'that only leaves 2 people so not enough' is an outcome that any reasonable person can anticipate, then the actual effect seems the same in both cases; it's just a matter of how rude the person is. The person with the narrowest range of what they're willing to play can still defacto shut down the group or have them play their games, whether or not they make the threat explicit.

Not to say that the odd man out is always the 'bad guy' or whatever, but it can also get tiring to end up repeatedly with one's 3rd or 4th choices on games because someone else expressed their preferences in more absolute terms. It doesn't create a lot of incentive to be the reasonable one.
 

vegetalss4

Registered User
Validated User
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.
This seems remarkably lacking in self-awareness.
Dude, you are the one insisting that Skaorn has to be drafted into something just so that someone you has chosen to identify with can have fun.
This is pure projection on your part.
 

Bren at RPG Net

Registered User
Validated User
But AFAICT, what Strange Visitor is talking about is more like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: Not my cup of tea, but have fun. I'll see you for the one after.
GM: Hmm, that only leaves two players ... not enough. I guess Pizza World isn't happening.

Which is unfortunate, but not unreasonable on anyone's part.
Thanks for posting this. My read was the same as yours. I hope Pizza World can clear up what seems to be a bit of confusion. Also, pizza...mmmm!

Not to say that the odd man out is always the 'bad guy' or whatever, but it can also get tiring to end up repeatedly with one's 3rd or 4th choices on games because someone else expressed their preferences in more absolute terms. It doesn't create a lot of incentive to be the reasonable one.
Making unreasonable demands is a recognized negotiating technique. And it does create an incentive for the parties to get less reasonable and more extreme in their demands.
 

Victim

Registered User
Validated User
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.
Well, I mean, if you have a long term group and want everyone end up with similar utility payouts after a series of games because the people in the group are friends or whatever, then actually yes the guy with 10/10 and 0/10 payouts should occasionally take a zero if other people are losing points from their most preferred games on his 10.[/quote]
 

Bren at RPG Net

Registered User
Validated User
Well, I mean, if you have a long term group and want everyone end up with similar utility payouts after a series of games because the people in the group are friends or whatever, then actually yes the guy with 10/10 and 0/10 payouts should occasionally take a zero if other people are losing points from their most preferred games on his 10.
I sometimes hear people on forums talk about having or needing contracts for RPG groups. That always sounded strange to me. But if the contracts required everyone to specify their utility functions I might get on board with that. For the novelty if nothing else. ;)
 
Top Bottom