How much is too much in terms of pushing your opinion?

[fluticasone]

Well, we've all been there. You think the GM did something dumb, politely suggest an alternative and you're completely shut down. Or maybe you're the GM and someone's pushing an idea towards you which you just can't agree with. When do you think it's time to put your foot down, or back up and let the other person get their way?


As the GM, it's always nice to be firm, but how do you differentiate being firm from just being obstinate? It's a fine line we have to watch out for, and I find many GM's crossing over to the stubborn line more often than not. One can come off as close-minded and quick to reject feedback. How can you tell if it's one of those times?


On the roleplayer side, one must acknowledge that the GM will always have the final say. However, it definitely isn't right that everything they say is best for the roleplay; it's a collaborative experience after all. But you can quickly come off as a pest and ruin the mood if you keep up a heated debate with the GM, so how do you know if you should just cut your losses and either bear with it, or just leave?


On my end, I try to incorporate my rper's feedback as much as possible, compromising my original thoughts with their input. Worse comes to worst, I call for a democratic votes amongst them, telling the others they shouldn't feel pressured to pick me just because I'm the GM. This is also a good reason why I like having a co-gm or at least mods that have slightly different views from me; they'll occasionally disagree, which is refreshing and because I've given them a position of authority, it means I trust them.


As for the rper side, I tend to give the GM's a couple of chances, letting them have their way and seeing how it plays out. If the result disappoints me and I know I can't bear with it any longer, I simply leave, stemming any drama that might arise from my dissatisfaction. Of course, before all this happens I will tell the GM of my honest (if a bit sugarcoated to sound polite) opinion and see how they react. If they don't answer politely, then I'll just flat out leave since I can't put up with a GM who can't respect their rp'ers feedback.

 

[call me rae]

To be honest it's pretty much impossible to distinguish anything but the most extreme cases. 


Ex. Someone is literally verbally harassing another person or blatantly ignoring someone else's stance to just go forward and do whatever they want.


ham-fisted denial of other people thoughts and feelings is of course bad and no one should do it.


calling people names or attacking them as a person for an abstract matter of opinion is also bad.


those are no brainers.


Unfortunately where you run into problems is the more subtle nuances. Where does one persons constrcutive criticism cross over into another persons critical attack?


The answers is to take every situation as it comes. Apologies if you happen to inadvertabtly give offense, and do your best to moderate your own words.


Is this a magic solution to the problem? No but sadly there isn't one.


because as I tell people all the time persceptions and opinions are highly subjective. What I might view as being obstinent or nonsensical another person might find perfectly reasonable and correct. And vice versa.


In the example given if I don't like the way a GM is running a roleplay I leave. Because on this site the GM is the ultimate authority of their roleplay. As long as they are not breaking the site rules or harassing people they can run their roleplay however they want. if you don't like that than don't join the roleplay. This goes for players who are joining a roleplay and GMs dealing with players. its your roleplay, as long as your not harassing people or going against site rules you have ultimate say in your own roleplay. 

 

[Bone2pick]

so how do you know if you should just cut your losses and either bear with it, or just leave?

You raised several intersting questions but I'll just tackle the above for brevity's sake.  The point where I leave (from the point of view of a player) is the following: whenever the comprise(s) I would need make would virtually destroy the enthusiasm I have to participate in the roleplay.  The key word there is enthusiasm, which in my case, is a fragile energy source.  

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

When an impasse is reached. A gm should put their foot down when the player is infringing on other people's experience. A player should just back away if their experience is ruined. Generally from the gm experience I imagine not letting a special snowflake incident hurt the other players in their rp. For the player, I imagine being able to choose not to deal with something outrageous like rape or being forced into a pairing.  


But these are extreme cases. So in general the gm should always be receptive but only put their footdown when necessary. Say plot purposes or conduct. The player should take into account that they joined the rp. So they should be more willing to compromise, so long as the core rp experience(that got you interested in the first place) is kept in tact.

 

[fluticasone]

In the example given if I don't like the way a GM is running a roleplay I leave. Because on this site the GM is the ultimate authority of their roleplay. As long as they are not breaking the site rules or harassing people they can run their roleplay however they want. if you don't like that than don't join the roleplay. This goes for players who are joining a roleplay and GMs dealing with players. its your roleplay, as long as your not harassing people or going against site rules you have ultimate say in your own roleplay. 

 I'm personally a lot more hesitant to disentangle myself from roleplays because I either drag my friends in with me, or I make friends there. A good friend can make a lot of terrible circumstances bearable. I'm also extremely picky about roleplays I join, so when I find one, I'm a lot more unwilling to let go as it's rare for another to catch my interests or meet my personal standards. I may just be a masochist tho. 

there's always that case of you like 70% of what of the GM is doing, but there is that 30% that you vehemently disagree with. Percentages vary from person to person, and I doubt most people will find a GM they can be behind 100%.  What's your breaking point?

You raised several intersting questions but I'll just tackle the above for brevity's sake.  The point where I leave (from the point of view of a player) is the following: whenever the comprise(s) I would need make would virtually destroy the enthusiasm I have to participate in the roleplay.  The key word there is enthusiasm, which in my case, is a fragile energy source.  

This makes sense, and is a fair limit. Would you mind giving me an example or any experiences you had? I'm curious to see where the line is for most folks. I'm generally a much more tolerant RPer than I am a GM.

When an impasse is reached. A gm should put their foot down when the player is infringing on other people's experience. A player should just back away if their experience is ruined. Generally from the gm experience I imagine not letting a special snowflake incident hurt the other players in their rp. For the player, I imagine being able to choose not to deal with something outrageous like rape or being forced into a pairing.  


But these are extreme cases. So in general the gm should always be receptive but only put their footdown when necessary. Say plot purposes or conduct. The player should take into account that they joined the rp. So they should be more willing to compromise, so long as the core rp experience(that got you interested in the first place) is kept in tact.

Gods being forced into a pairing. Reminds me of the time someone was shoving the ship between their character and one of mine's, and I had to dodge their not-so-subtle OTP insistence. 

I agree with that, but at the same time there's always those GM's that fail to convey their vision/thoughts properly, hidden behind some sort of logic that only they can see. How would you catch yourself if it's one of those times?

 

[Bone2pick]

This makes sense, and is a fair limit. Would you mind giving me an example or any experiences you had? I'm curious to see where the line is for most folks. I'm generally a much more tolerant RPer than I am a GM.

I'll provide an example but I'm not sure how much it will help.  There are infinite circumstances that can destroy my enthusiasm for a roleplay; it's like asking where is my line for falling out of love with a series of novels.


Years ago I joined a typical fantasy roleplay where the players created their race and nation of origin (to be added to the world map), so long as they kept their characters at a reasonable power level.  We began scattered across the continent with a requirement that we were to meetup in the same town.  The town was preparing itself to defend against a siege from the RP's big bad faction (GM controlled).  


After several posts describing my character's travels and then arrival to said town, I asked about the details of the military bunkering down there.  That's when another player informed (scolded?) me in the OOC thread that my character wouldn't have access to that kind of information.  He argued that because my character was a foreigner, military matters wouldn't be revealed to him.


I countered that I only wanted a rough estimate—for instance, things my character could witness with his own eyes—for post description purposes.  That's when the GM chimed in and instructed me to, and I quote, "focus on my own character."


My enthusiasm and faith in the RP died with his suggestion, and I immediately left the roleplay.  

 

[The Mechanist]

I'm fairly stubborn and will fight for my beliefs, only once did I actually surrender to the gms wishes, 'ainly cuz my gf got pissed at me for fighting the gm to begin with

 

[The Mechanist]

I'll provide an example but I'm not sure how much it will help.  There are infinite circumstances that can destroy my enthusiasm for a roleplay; it's like asking where is my line for falling out of love with a series of novels.


Years ago I joined a typical fantasy roleplay where the players created their race and nation of origin (to be added to the world map), so long as they kept their characters at a reasonable power level.  We began scattered across the continent with a requirement that we were to meetup in the same town.  The town was preparing itself to defend against a siege from the RP's big bad faction (GM controlled).  


After several posts describing my character's travels and then arrival to said town, I asked about the details of the military bunkering down there.  That's when another player informed (scolded?) me in the OOC thread that my character wouldn't have access to that kind of information.  He argued that because my character was a foreigner, military matters wouldn't be revealed to him.


I countered that I only wanted a rough estimate—for instance, things my character could witness with his own eyes—for post description purposes.  That's when the GM chimed in and instructed me to, and I quote, "focus on my own character."


My enthusiasm and faith in the RP died with his suggestion, and I immediately left the roleplay.  

Wow, not gonna lie that dude is fucking dick. As the gm his job is to mediate the situation, chances are the gm was friends with the player who scolded you and forgot his responsibilities as gm playing the favoritism card. There were many ways that could've been handled but he chose the route that pretty much labels him as I said, a fucking dick.


i am sorry you had to deal with such a person, if there are any rp's you wish to join which actually have warm hearted people I assure you I can direct you to them. i myself have never been a gm, I've been a mod on a few rp's, the same rp's with kind and understanding gms, but I know what it means to be in charge, to be leader and have control over something, working in the biology field you tend to learn that very fast, especially if an animal dies on you.

 

[Bone2pick]

@The Mechanist I appreciate the offer but that roleplay happened years ago.   I only resurrected it because it serves as a good example of my breaking point. 

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

I agree with that, but at the same time there's always those GM's that fail to convey their vision/thoughts properly, hidden behind some sort of logic that only they can see. How would you catch yourself if it's one of those times?

@monopoisoner Could you give me an example of this? Are we talking about unclear writing or someone who seems to have no direction and refuses to budge when their players don't get it?

 

[fluticasone]

@Bone2pick


oh jfc that's a shit gm no two ways about it :\

@monopoisoner Could you give me an example of this? Are we talking about unclear writing or someone who seems to have no direction and refuses to budge when their players don't get it?

For example, you have a certain aesthetic/theme in mind for your roleplay, wanting any characters that apply with certain tropes and traits. However, you failed to clarify this or state it plainly, resulting in someone's character technically fitting your setting, but not conforming to your ideas. This is a failure on the GM's part, yet if the player tries to argue for their character's approval, they will frequently be met with a "logical" answer that has nothing to do with basis of fact and more to do with the GM's preference. They just can't say it plainly.

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

@Bone2pick


oh jfc that's a shit gm no two ways about it :\


For example, you have a certain aesthetic/theme in mind for your roleplay, wanting any characters that apply with certain tropes and traits. However, you failed to clarify this or state it plainly, resulting in someone's character technically fitting your setting, but not conforming to your ideas. This is a failure on the GM's part, yet if the player tries to argue for their character's approval, they will frequently be met with a "logical" answer that has nothing to do with basis of fact and more to do with the GM's preference. They just can't say it plainly.

I suppose that'd be strike one for me personally as the player. If you ruin the vision I had for my character on the basis of not liking it, then you better have a good reason. Most gm's who deny me typically have a specific reason, whether that be too overpowered or not fitting with the lore that's prestablished. But if it's simply, I only wanted NEKO NEKO cats and no RABBITS. Then how could I in good conscience stick around with a gm who messes up on simple matters. What's worse than the mess up is the fact that they're already stubborn and it's in the easy stage of the rp, where the stakes are lower. What more when he or she has to juggle 6 people?


Is this gm simply going to tell the other nekos what they can and can't do based on a vision we can't see?

 

[Idea]

Well, I could spend days on this matter alone, however, I will ATTEMPT to keep myself brief.


The main thing for me, as a person with a deep interest in philosophy is whether or not they have a point. First and foremost, whether they are right is not the main issue for me, but whether they can show me they are not just throwing a fit and that I am not the only person trying to think of the matter.


For example, in a certain MTG RP, there was one player who was convinced he was more knowledgeable about the lore than myself and was thus constantly attempting to correct me. At first, I allowed it: It was indeed possible he was just a huge fanboy of the thing, more than myself, and thus would know better. However, as time went on, he became more and more demanding to where his corrections were not only laughably wrong but also pushy and impractical. He demanded unreasonable powers, picked on every statement I made, etc...


But here´s the big lesson: This guy (I later checked) was actually right at first. He had good reason to believe I was mistaken, and I was. However, allowing a person with the wrong attitude to gain from that wrong attitude allowed it to spur. This, I believe is a symptom of a larger matter: whenever you allow a small problem to insert itself, it grows, and any given roleplay can only take so many.


It is, thus, imperative that all problems are cut by the root. Sometimes, a roleplayer will be right in saying that their character is "technically" good to go (or a similar statement), but laying on the border is never good.


A good GM should be concerned with the good of the RP. No GM should strive to look good or just randomly please the players or allow exceptions cause "fun". A good Gm should be prepared to be harsh if needed and not afraid of roleplayers leaving.


Now, how to tell this apart from obstinate? It´s very vague concepts were working with, so naturally the answer will be somewhat vague as well. These are, however, the key the points I follow:


1. A GM has, first and foremost, to assure the continuation and future of the RP THEY SET OUT TO DO


2.Every argument must follow the rules of Aristotelic logic


3. Until proof in contrary, nothing is a matter of opinion. However, if given evidence to the probability of you being wrong, a reconsideration must be undergone


4.Mistakes are only permissible if they allow for greatly surpassing beneficts for the roleplay itself


5. A GM is permitted to end any conversation without being convinced or convincing to undergo a review on their previous thoughts if and only if spoilers prevent them from explaining the answers further or if the conversation has become futile and overextensive.


Now, I could go on and on about what a GM needs to inform the player about etc...  However I am kinda busy so I´ll leave it for my blog when I start it.


Now, ever so briefly, addressing the matter of what a player needs to know how to accept.


In one word, whatever the GM tells them that respects their dignity as players. It´s a rather vague way to put it, but my experience tells me there is no other way of really going through with this. After all, a player should have much more limited information than the GM, who is running the whole thing. A full level field in argumenting is impossible, and though not that many, some things are in fact just a matter of opinion. So, in the end, as long as the GM is being respectful, that is, taking your thoughts and your enjoyment into the equation (though not necessarily giving them priority), at least attempts to give you a proper response and to offer alternatives, plus takes you seriously overall, it´s good standards to accept a GM´s word for their RPs. And if it kills it for you? Well, it´s a shame, but then you´re not fit for the RP. not that you´re the problem, but maybe it´s just not something that, in it´s execution is to your liking.


Now, a final note, since I have been typing this long enough: another matter that was forgotten here was "player to player". most of my problems as a player were met not in the face of GMs but in that of other players being unreasonable. One time that really sticked in my mind was the one where I was repeatedly insulted (called childish and selfish) for telling the GM I was leaving an RP because I was frustrated at having missed an opportunity there and I was afraid I might end up begrudging players for it, despite being fully aware of their lack of fault for it.

 

[Archon]

What's an opinion?


All I know is when I'm right.  


I'll make my own way out...