|
Post by ilina on Oct 8, 2015 23:06:28 GMT -8
i have to deal with a SW Game Master that happens to be a closed minded F****ing AD&D 2e Grognard trying to Run Savage Worlds like it were a F***ing Core Only Game of a AD&D 2e. sorry for the curse words, but i can't even apply core trappings or even common sense descriptions to define a characters edges or hindrances, and even though the guy has a Fallout 3 Fetish, he only seems to accept very overdone and archetyped characters as if he were trying to "Reign in the Cheese" as he calls it. and even worse, he doesn't even offer bennies for roleplaying hindrances or even give any incentive to roleplay them, which just encourages players to pick hindrances that fit their samey natural personality.
not only does he disallow or dislike most "trappings" but he doesn't even give us a second to come up with a description, he comes up with them for us based on what he sees on the sheet. and well, in 2E tradition, he always starts people with nothing but the clothes on their backs and has a very limited view of what constitutes a challenge or encounter. he always soaks for his Wild cards with GM bennies and always expects to incapacitate half the party each fight.
he starts every new campaign with 0 XP. even if it would make sense in the setting for the characters to have a little more. and well, he gives 50 page long packets telling you which edge and hindrance combinations you aren't allowed to combine as well as which powers are okay with which arcane backgrounds, and even if you point out a logical in game precedent, he will disallow it.
god forbid you take arcane background of any kind, and wear anything that isn't a long robe and pointed hat. and forget about the common sense benefits that would apply to certain hindrances, like small characters having an easier time finding cover or immature characters having an easier time talking to children.
how do my husband and i convince this closed minded douchebag that trapping and describing characters is perfectly okay, and is kind of the point of Savage Worlds?
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 9, 2015 0:27:59 GMT -8
Just don't play with him.
Really.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Oct 9, 2015 1:27:04 GMT -8
I wouldn't play 2e with him either - not saying how he should run his games but his experience of 2e is poles apart from mine Aaron
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 9, 2015 1:51:08 GMT -8
how do my husband and i convince this closed minded douchebag that trapping and describing characters is perfectly okay, and is kind of the point of Savage Worlds? Yeah, sorry to say this, but you don't. From your description, this GM is set in their ways and isn't open to change. Either accept that this is how this particular GM plays and learn to live with it, or find a new group. Not the answer you want to hear perhaps, but sometimes the truth hurts.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Oct 9, 2015 6:30:18 GMT -8
Sadly, people only change if they want to. Unless this GM approaches the game from a stand point of wanting to improve, it's very possible things will just fall on deaf ears.
I wish you luck with this game getting better, or finding a GM that suits your play style more.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 9, 2015 20:18:44 GMT -8
Beat him with a blunt instrument until he changes his way of doing things or just quits moving. Either one works.
JiB
Addendum: As everyone, I hope, is sure, I wouldn't really advocate physical violence as a solution. The above was a bad attempt at humor. I really should not allow my sense of humor to wander around unsupervised, It always gets into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 9, 2015 21:24:26 GMT -8
Before we recommend assault (even in jest), let us remember that there are three sides to every story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 23:46:13 GMT -8
god forbid you take arcane background of any kind, and wear anything that isn't a long robe and pointed hat. It sounds like the GM has a strong vision for what the setting is like, which can be kind of a good thing, since it helps combat GM apathy in the face of repeated weeks of game preparation. When a GM tries to run a long campaign in a setting, but can't quite bring himself or herself to get really invested in it, the whole thing suffers for everyone involved. So it sounds like it's part of this GM's setting that wizards have a strict tradition of wearing robes, and spells are all codified things which are studied exactly and never vary between individuals. There's also a possibility that he's being overly strict against small characters because they don't really fit into his vision of what a proper adventurer should be. And that's fine or whatever, since it provides a strong flavor to the world, but it means there are a lot of characters you just can't do. Tell him that you're not having fun with his world, that you'd rather play in a world where magic is more magical and all sorts of different people can cast spells that have all sorts of personalized effects, and otherwise you were thinking about quitting. Maybe be more tactful about it than that. There's a good chance that he'll say he can't run a game in that sort of world, because it's too "silly" or "un-realistic". Try not to roll your eyes too hard at that point. There's a small chance that he might be open to discussion and lighten up on things, once you've addressed the topic directly. More likely, he'll say that he just can't do that, at which point you'd be better off finding a new game somewhere else. Even if he does try and change, though, don't expect it to go smoothly; old habits die hard, and these habits have been in place for decades.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 12, 2015 4:02:39 GMT -8
I just think that unless you are dead set on a tabletop game in meatspace, you don't have to settle for less than average players/GM's.
I know, I know, not everyone can have average or better players/GM's by definition. But at least online you have a fighting chance.
|
|
Benji
Journeyman Douchebag
Alea iacta est
Posts: 176
Preferred Game Systems: Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, V20, D&D 3.5, Castles & Crusades, Monsters & Other Childish Things, Little Fears, TFOS
Currently Playing: Not a damn thing
Currently Running: Pathfinder, Savage Worlds
Favorite Species of Monkey: Cebuella pygmaea
|
Post by Benji on Oct 12, 2015 11:02:39 GMT -8
I've had GMs like this before. They are either confrontational, believing in the "players vs GM" school of thought or they are very protective over their game/concept and will brook no change or deviation from the master plan. Definitely not a "yes and" type.
I'm going to agree with most of the comments and say that it may be in your best interest to walk away from the game if a compromise can't be met. Most of us have a precious amount of free time to indulge in our hobbies. Why waste that time if you're not enjoying the game?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 12, 2015 14:53:06 GMT -8
I've had GMs like this before. They are either confrontational, believing in the "players vs GM" school of thought or they are very protective over their game/concept and will brook no change or deviation from the master plan. Definitely not a "yes and" type. I'm going to agree with most of the comments and say that it may be in your best interest to walk away from the game if a compromise can't be met. Most of us have a precious amount of free time to indulge in our hobbies. Why waste that time if you're not enjoying the game? I can only reiterate my premise that we are NOT writing a story when we sit down to do game prep. We are in fact creating a GAME for people to play. If what a gm wants to do is create a story they need to pour themselves a scotch and sit down and write their bloody novel and quit bothering the players with their dreck. JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 16:15:56 GMT -8
I can only reiterate my premise that we are NOT writing a story when we sit down to do game prep. We are in fact creating a GAME for people to play. If what a gm wants to do is create a story they need to pour themselves a scotch and sit down and write their bloody novel and quit bothering the players with their dreck. Creating a world is different from creating a story, and although many times the players are asked for some input, it's usually one of the big selling points to being a GM. If I'm sick and tired of dealing with vampires, then I can just create my own world that doesn't have any vampires in it, and the players will have to agree to that if they want to play. If they don't want to deal with my setting restrictions, then they don't have to play; if nobody wants to play, then I can't run my game. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem like this GM is trying to tell a story. It's not a railroading situation. It sounds like he just has a very strongly-defined setting. The only complaint is about trappings and descriptions. how do my husband and i convince this closed minded douchebag that trapping and describing characters is perfectly okay, and is kind of the point of Savage Worlds? Having read through Savage Worlds Deluxe fairly recently, I can't confidently state if that is the point. I know that D&D 4E was big on re-flavoring all of your powers however you felt like, and I know that Exalted gives you bonus dice if you describe something in a particularly awesome way, but I can't recall any specific passage from Savage Worlds where it actually says that the players should describe what it looks like when they do something. That's not to say that it doesn't say that, but only that I can't remember it. If it does, though, then that could be a good angle of attack against the GM; if you can open the book to whatever page and quote that the players should be encouraged to describe the effects of their actions, then that might be enough to convince him to ease up. Two things that grognards usually respect are 1) tradition, and 2) RAW. I do remember a fairly significant section about trappings, though, especially regarding their mechanical effects. If you add Ice trappings to your Bolt power, then that should definitely change what it looks like, and the GM should be incorporating that into the description since it's actually written on the character sheet (and reflected in the mechanics). Unless, as you've implied, he has simply disallowed most of those, in which case it's just more setting details - Ice Bolt doesn't exist in this world, just like plate wizards and halflings don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 12, 2015 17:14:26 GMT -8
I've had GMs like this before. They are either confrontational, believing in the "players vs GM" school of thought or they are very protective over their game/concept and will brook no change or deviation from the master plan. Definitely not a "yes and" type. I'm going to agree with most of the comments and say that it may be in your best interest to walk away from the game if a compromise can't be met. Most of us have a precious amount of free time to indulge in our hobbies. Why waste that time if you're not enjoying the game? I can only reiterate my premise that we are NOT writing a story when we sit down to do game prep. We are in fact creating a GAME for people to play. If what a gm wants to do is create a story they need to pour themselves a scotch and sit down and write their bloody novel and quit bothering the players with their dreck. JiB Now that's just not true. Not as you put it. Again, as I've said a few times, it's all about how married you are to it. I want, very much, to tell the story about a group of strangers who learn that they have a deep, mystical connection, through the failed quest of their ancestors. About how they learn that the universe wants them to fulfill their bloodlines destiny and kill a dark god. Now, if that story involves the players saying, "Fuck the universe and this saviour crap. We're opening a bar!" that's fine. That's the way the story unfolds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 23:38:58 GMT -8
I just think that unless you are dead set on a tabletop game in meatspace, you don't have to settle for less than average players/GM's. I know, I know, not everyone can have average or better players/GM's by definition. But at least online you have a fighting chance. Playing and GMing is a skill you can get better at if you are trying. Ditching people because they are inexperienced is a dick move. It's one thing to not play with experienced people who are below par and unwilling to make an effort to improve, but doing it to a newby makes you a special kind of asshole. No one was good on day one, not ever you. For those of us not old enough to remember Gary Gygaxes basement and what it looked like, almost all of us played with more experienced people from the get go. If they had dumped us where would we all be today? Applying your attitude to everyone without qualification is the equivalent of, "Fuck you, got mine." Maybe you didn't intend this to apply to newer folks. I can't say what you were thinking. So maybe my knee jerk is just a bit to hard. I do think it is important to be good ambassadors to future generations of gamers though. Perhaps you can see why I take such a harsh stance.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Oct 12, 2015 23:52:19 GMT -8
I just think that unless you are dead set on a tabletop game in meatspace, you don't have to settle for less than average players/GM's. I know, I know, not everyone can have average or better players/GM's by definition. But at least online you have a fighting chance. Playing and GMing is a skill you can get better at if you are trying. Ditching people because they are inexperienced is a dick move. It's one thing to not play with experienced people who are below par and unwilling to make an effort to improve, but doing it to a newby makes you a special kind of asshole. No one was good on day one, not ever you. For those of us not old enough to remember Gary Gygaxes basement and what it looked like, almost all of us played with more experienced people from the get go. If they had dumped us where would we all be today? Applying your attitude to everyone without qualification is the equivalent of, "Fuck you, got mine." Maybe you didn't intend this to apply to newer folks. I can't say what you were thinking. So maybe my knee jerk is just a bit to hard. I do think it is important to be good ambassadors to future generations of gamers though. Perhaps you can see why I take such a harsh stance. I certainly was not trying to say that newbs are not worth one's time. My comments are intended primarily to apply to people such as the "D&D 2nd Ed grognard" GM spoken about in the original post - for whom I do not think experience is the issue. It does however, apply equally to all people who you just can't enjoy playing with. Being a newb doesn't preclude someone from being an asshole.....
|
|