Huh.
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], you booted a player out of your gaming group because he didn't want to play a game that you wanted to play. You've never disputed that. Now, since no other player at the table could possibly do that, how exactly do you not have authority over someone?
Funny how the idea that you would pick a different day, create a new group and run what you wanted to run was never even mentioned as an option. No, instead you booted the player and more than a few people in this thread saw nothing wrong with that.
But, apparently, that doesn't mean authority over someone somehow...
Frankly, call it throat warbler mangrove for all I care. The point is that "traditional" DM'ing places virtually all the power in the hands of the DM.
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - the problem I have with calling it "Dungeon Master" is that I consider myself a DM. I regularly run D&D games. But, I certainly don't feel that I have the authority to eject a player for not wanting to play in my new campaign. I have a lot more loyalty to my players than that. If someone at my idea objected to my next campaign idea, I'd simply pitch another one. The notion that players are essentially disposable runs very, very against how I view the table.
"Huh. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], you ***booted a player out of your gaming group*** because he didn't want to play a game that you wanted to play. You've never disputed that. Now, since no other player at the table could possibly do that, how exactly do you not have authority over someone?"
The above is simply not true.. The player was not booted from our gaming group.
To be clear, after one campaign ended, I told one of those players he would not be invited into the next campaign I and the other players would be playing in (that we wanted to play in) because that player had for years across multiple campaigns stated and shown an extreme negative reaction to one of that next campaign themes.
That player agreed. The other players agreed.
He was not kicked from the gaming group. We continued other games with him weekly. He joined us again in the campaign after that and continued to be a great player in many of our games for many years to come until he passed Christmas last.
It's not my job here to try and deal with other posters difficulty in understanding relationships and commitments exist at different levels and scale. There are professionals for that.
but when it comes to this degree of BS, I see a need to respond.
Now as to your other claim that no other player could do that at the table... again wrong.
When that player passed, the question of replacement came up.
So I put it to a group choice.
First the decision to seek a replacement was approved.
Then each submitted candidates.
Then we had discussion with EVERYONE having a veto.
Nobody was going to be forced to allow a player in they did not want in the game, even me.
Fact is, my suggested addition was vetoed by another player, just as I vetoed someone else's. We each had the same authority.
As for this nonsense...
"Funny how the idea that **you** would pick a different day, create a new group and run what you wanted to run was never even mentioned as an option. No, instead you booted the player and more than a few people in this thread saw nothing wrong with that.
But, apparently, that doesn't mean authority over someone somehow...
"
Linking this to the post you were responding to - referencing the players can step aside create their own game and play in response to a bad GM - yes absolutely he could have done that. He ended up choosing to spend more time on his miniature wargames. We all had lots of activities we participated in.
But you seem to be twisting that into **me** as hm offering to run a new game for him and that's a different thing - to most people.
I had no authority over his choosing to play in other games, with other people or who he chose to game with - none at all.
All I have is the authority to control who I wont play with in a given moment. Just like all the other players do.
