Your game or theirs?

[Kzach]

I currently DM a weekly game set in my homebrew world with custom rules. From the outset, I asked players that before I begin DM'ing, they needed to be happy with a few of my conditions.

Those conditions mainly required them to accept me and my DM'ing style as is, without complaint. The same went for custom rules and any rules changes I made, or any adjudications I made during play.

I was happy not to DM if they weren't happy with these conditions. They all agreed to them and promptly ignored them during our sessions.

As such, I lost interest in the game and only kept going because a friend wanted to keep playing. Two people have now left for greener pastures, but the remainder of us decided to start anew and get a couple of replacements.

This renewed my vigour and excitement and I set about putting effort back into the games. And I feel it has shown and everyone has enjoyed the games so far.

However, I'm introducing a few custom rules again as they are only now getting to a level where they can utilise certain feats and choices I've put into the game. The problem is, again, I'm getting questioned and criticised over the rules I'm creating.

One player in particular essentially expects to have input into what I create and how it gets implemented in the game. This is not how I like to do things. I'm not interested in discussion or changing things to suit the player. I'm very much a "My way or the highway," type of DM. And if players don't like that, I'm happy to step aside and become a player myself.

That isn't to say that I don't understand his desire to have input, just that I'm not really interested in having a debate about my rulings. It's tiresome and stressful and I haven't the emotional energy to defend my decisions for something that is supposed to be a game of fun.

So what do you think? Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

[Toben the Many]

The real problem, it sounds like to me, is that you are just now implementing some of the rules you are talking about.

As a player, I have no problem with the DM being the authority. However, I do have serious problems when the DM says, "I'm going to introduce a new rule." or "I'm going to change the rules on you."

Often times, such rules changes means that my character or someone else's character is nerfed. And I would probably have made a totally different character had I known about the rules changes way ahead of time.

For me, personally, I don't mind houserules - but I want to know about them upfront. Even if the houserules are, IMO, silly or unbalanced or dumb. I'll go ahead and play with them so long as I know what to expect.

As a rule, most people don't like change.

[shilsen]

I think it's neither your game nor theirs exclusively, but both. And so, my answer would be "neither" to the questions you ask at the end of your post:

Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

Personally, I would tell the players that since I need to be happy with the rules in the game to be able to run it successfully and in a manner which'll benefit the campaign, I need to have the final say on all rules. That said, I would add that since I respect their input and they will, after all, be running characters in the campaign, I'm happy to hear their opinions about all rules and rulings and will take them into account when making a decision. And I'd just appreciate it if they respect my rulings and don't complain when I do make a decision, since I can't really run the game if they do so regularly.

That's what I'd do, and that's what I do, and I think the above is a key reason why I have a still running 3 year old campaign (coming up on the 90th session) with a very diverse group of people with divergent tastes and outlooks on gaming. The sort of autocratic outlook you have on DMing wouldn't work for me as DM or player, and it certainly wouldn't work for any of the multiple groups I've been (and am) involved with.

[Neil Bishop]

The problem with the little autocracy you have created is that, as autocrat, everything relies on your judgement. What if you are wrong?

Also, it's not your game or their game: you all "own" it. If a player wants to be a sounding board why not exchange emails between sessions?

That's different to having every ruling you make in a game questioned. Sure, sometimes that can go too far but I wouldn't lose friends or players over a desire to preserve my little empire when a little bit of negotiation/give and take could produce a superior game for everyone.

[Rechan]

As a DM (which is my primary role), I would never take an attitude of "You are a guest in the presence of my game." And if I went to someone else's table and the attitude was "Here is my game, you shut up and like it," I'd politely walk out. To me it shows a lack of respect, among other things.

Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

Do you honestly believe there is no gray between that black and white?

A DM is not there just to entertain the players and hand them the keys to the kingdom without say. Neither are the players there to be puppets to dance to the DM's tune without question. Gaming is a collaborative effort. Everyone at the table is supposed to be friends. The DM is a deciding figure, yes, but that is only because the players agree to let him have the final (but not the only) say.

Honestly, the DM is just a referee, not an unquestionable judge.

[Reveille]

Whenever I have a house rule or a proposed change I let the players know. I let them in on all of the details.

If after a number of sesiions a change or house rule is getting complaints, I'll tweak or abolish it until the players are satisfied.

Dungeons and Dragons, or any rpg for that matter is about the heroes. Sure, every game needs a GM, but if the players aren't happy, they move on. A GM without players isn't a GM for much longer.

In my experience this is the best way to handle things.

[Wulf Ratbane]

The best ruling I have found I borrowed from Piratecat:

No arguing with the DM at the table.

But you owe it to them to hear them out between sessions.

Frankly, given the terms and the attitude you set out in this post, I'd flag you as a problem player and boot you. Anybody on such a "take my ball and go home" hair trigger is going to end up fracturing the game sooner or later, whether as a player or a DM.

[megamania]

I rarely change rules but I will bring in new rules / resources.


My general rule is what is good for the goose is good for the ganger.


Everyone needs to be happy however.

[Phaezen]

Originally Posted by shilsen

I think it's neither your game nor theirs exclusively, but both.

Personally, I would tell the players that since I need to be happy with the rules in the game to be able to run it successfully and in a manner which'll benefit the campaign, I need to have the final say on all rules. That said, I would add that since I respect their input and they will, after all, be running characters in the campaign, I'm happy to hear their opinions about all rules and rulings and will take them into account when making a decision. And I'd just appreciate it if they respect my rulings and don't complain when I do make a decision, since I can't really run the game if they do so regularly.

That's what I'd do, and that's what I do, and I think the above is a key reason why I have a still running 3 year old campaign (coming up on the 90th session) with a very diverse group of people with divergent tastes and outlooks on gaming. The sort of autocratic outlook you have on DMing wouldn't work for me as DM or player, and it certainly wouldn't work for any of the multiple groups I've been (and am) involved with.

Originally Posted by Reveille

Whenever I have a house rule or a proposed change I let the players know. I let them in on all of the details.

If after a number of sesiions a change or house rule is getting complaints, I'll tweak or abolish it until the players are satisfied.

Dungeons and Dragons, or any rpg for that matter is about the heroes. Sure, every game needs a GM, but if the players aren't happy, they move on. A GM without players isn't a GM for much longer.

In my experience this is the best way to handle things.

This.

I discuss any potential houserules with my players and listen to thier feedback and if we find a certain houserule is not working the way it was intended then we revisit it and alter or scrap it. This is a co-operative story telling game, so everyone needs input to make it successful.

Phaezen

[Prisoner6]

Originally Posted by Kzach

... From the outset, I asked players that before I begin DM'ing, they needed to be happy with a few of my conditions.

Those conditions mainly required them to accept me and my DM'ing style as is, without complaint. The same went for custom rules and any rules changes I made, or any adjudications I made during play.

... They all agreed to them and promptly ignored them during our sessions.

... Two people have now left for greener pastures,

... I'm not interested in discussion or changing things to suit the player. I'm very much a "My way or the highway," type of DM.

If you're not interested in other people's input, why are you bothering to post here?

I'm not trying to be overly harsh, but there are a lot of red flags here. You KNEW ahead of time that your DMing "style" causes problems, but your way of dealing with it was to demand no one question your authority. That's not dealing with the root problems (your DMing style) but instead attempting to deny their existence.

If nobody talks about it then it's not a problem, right?

It sounds like the problems go much deeper than just players questioning a couple of house rules to me.

[Fallen Seraph]

In my games when I DM I find it much easier to address any house-rules prior to when they are put into use. I go through each one with the group and address if they have any concerns with them, I tell them why I think it be good for the gameplay or the feel of the campaign. But in the end their enjoyment plays into my own enjoyment since D&D is a group activity so if they don't like the house-rules they aren't implemented or together as a group we figure out house-rules.

Hell, this happens even prior to a campaign starting. I give the group a basic layout of a campaign/setting (or multiple ones) we discuss what we would like to play. Then after deciding on one we together try to adapt the setting/campaign chosen to suit what each person would want, ie; person wants to play a Tiefling a race is developed to suit that in the setting.

I find it creates a much more fun and indepth group dynamic because your all playing a roll in making this game work. This also tailors into my game-style where stuff like... Influencing an enemy can be descided narratively by a player, ie; how that enemy got damaged by his attack. Or influence what is in a city by discussing where to go.

[Treebore]

With the caveat, all rules are subject to change, I write out my house rules and give them to my players. They are to tell me if they like it/them, and if not are to write up alternatives. I then consider their input and make any changes I like, and give a written explanation as to why I did or did not change things even more.

Then they get implemented. If problems come up in play the rule gets tweaked and the changes noted in my write up ASAP.

So things are done my way, but I have good players who have a good eye towards "balance", so I am fortunate enough to have good feedback too. So it works for me.

The key is they have to write out their suggestions/problems. If they can't be bothered to write it up, like I do, then they don't really have any problems. So therefore don't have the right to argue with me about it. So aren't allowed to waste my time with verbal arguing/debate.

So my thinking is, if it bugs them enough to put in the effort to write up suggestions, it really bugs them. IF they only want to verbally complain then they don't really care, they just want to complain.

[Kzach]

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?

When I create a rule, I research it as best I can. I go through message boards and look for similar rules, go through what books I have, and if I have any doubts I post to get feedback before using it in the game.

All of this takes a substantial amount of time, effort and energy. To then have the rule reviewed and criticised in game and out just adds to an already large workload. Especially when I'm already putting together 3D scenarios, custom monsters, and trying to piece together a substantive, interesting, interactive plot for not only the group, but each player.

I should also point out that gaming with long-term friends is a wholly different scenario to throwing together a group of people through online and other resources and hoping everyone gels enough for sessions to continue. If you're lucky enough to be gaming with people you've known for years, that's great, but don't compare your game to mine when we're both dealing with completely different situations.

I compare it to too many cooks in a kitchen. Either you have a head chef who brooks no argument and produce brilliant dishes, or you have every chef arguing with each other and produce nothing.

Maybe if I'm with this same group for another year or two we can all be happy-happy-joy-joy buddies who sing kumbuya and toast marshmallows together, but until then if there isn't a clear leader, the game devolves into twenty minute rounds as we argue over minutia. And out of game, I'm already putting a large amount of effort (I spent almost the entire day yesterday just writing out new content for the players) in, by adding in a discussion and input from players on every custom rule I use, I'm increasing my workload exponentially.

And if I'm wrong about a rule, it gets changed... by me. I'm trying for balance and reason and enjoyment for all. If I'm not good enough and people don't like my style, then as I've said, I'm happy to sit at the player's table. I'm not forcing anyone to be in my game. And when someone else DM's, I swallow whatever they dish up. If I have enough of a problem with something that it spoils my enjoyment of the game, I'll take it up with the DM, but otherwise I just sit and play.

Who is disrespecting who by questioning and criticising all that I do?

[Fallen Seraph]

It doesn't take that long to go before a game starts, to go, "hey guys what do you think of this rule, it good with you?" If the majority agree then cool, if not then don't add it or agree to spend sometime later on talking about it. Perhaps spend part of a normal game-time discussing such stuff.

In fact it may be good to spend a whole game-time period prior to starting the game to go over all this stuff together, thus it doesn't get shoved into all rest of the work your doing but happens prior. Heck you could do this a couple weeks prior to the campaign beginning so you have time to adapt things if need be.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Kzach

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?

It's how normal people form functioning, long-term social relationships.