-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[DannyAlcatraz] What do you do about the D&D-only player?
- Thread starter scourger
- Start date
I think James's stance is the fair one.
My regular gaming group decided to play Sidewinder, or some sort of modification of it. That's not my gaming style and I wasn't into it. The rest of the group played and I didn't. I wasn't upset about it - my personal preference shouldn't have stopped them from playing something they wanted to
My regular gaming group decided to play Sidewinder, or some sort of modification of it. That's not my gaming style and I wasn't into it. The rest of the group played and I didn't. I wasn't upset about it - my personal preference shouldn't have stopped them from playing something they wanted to
[blush]I've never been called out before![/blush]
What I do depends upon the totality of circumstances.
I've been gaming for nearly 30 years, and while most of the gamers I've gamed with are open to new RPGs, I've encountered a few who are single-system players. Sometimes its some form of D&D, sometimes its GURPS or HERO.
Currently, I associate & game with about 15 gamers...most of whom are in a single group currently going through RttToEE. Of the 15, at least 2 are D&D only...but for different reasons.
One claims to simply not have the time to invest in learning a new system. IMHO, she's no busier than anyone else, but she doesn't manage her time as well as she could...so I give her a pass. If I want to include her in a game, I'll run D&D, but I don't feel any particular loyalty to including her. If she were the only one to object to joining a campaign because it wasn't D&D, I'd still run the game and let her be the one to decide whether to show up or not.
The other is merely obstinate and unwilling to learn a new system, but I've gamed with him since 1984- he's a pretty good friend. (Usually.) He's also a good gamer within his narrow tastes (virtually Wizards Only as long as I've known him)- if you looked at one of his Wizards, its optimization would be immediately obvious. Part of that is because he's a math whiz- he naturally gravitated to choosing the optimal spells & feats in the game. He's also one of the 4 people who host our large group (as am I).
Excluding him from a campaign is difficult...however, I'm willing to do that as well. He does have other interests, after all, and he could make good use of the time to indulge in them.
The problem is that there is almost no point in trying- several of the other guys in the group, while not actually averse to playing other RPGs, are disinclined to do so because of their very real time constraints...and a LOT of online gaming. In the 10 years this group has been gaming together, the only other tabletop RPG played has been RIFTS...and that only lasted about 6 months. When the guys were into City of Heroes, I volunteered to run a superhero campaign. One guy expressed real interest, one expressed marginal, conditional interest ("I will if others will")...and the rest read my email without response.
I'm not entirely disheartened by this. I still design campaigns and adventures for other RPGs- I have 7 in the works stored on my PDA, covering modern fantasy, supers, sci-fi and other genres. Someday, I'll get a chance to run one.
And despite my frequent posts to this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=102706&page=3), I simply don't feel up to running a classic fantasy campaign these days- I'm somewhat burned out on it. Thus, right now, I'm not even running a campaign. I haven't for more than 2 years.
...but I have a doozy in the works.
What I do depends upon the totality of circumstances.
I've been gaming for nearly 30 years, and while most of the gamers I've gamed with are open to new RPGs, I've encountered a few who are single-system players. Sometimes its some form of D&D, sometimes its GURPS or HERO.
Currently, I associate & game with about 15 gamers...most of whom are in a single group currently going through RttToEE. Of the 15, at least 2 are D&D only...but for different reasons.
One claims to simply not have the time to invest in learning a new system. IMHO, she's no busier than anyone else, but she doesn't manage her time as well as she could...so I give her a pass. If I want to include her in a game, I'll run D&D, but I don't feel any particular loyalty to including her. If she were the only one to object to joining a campaign because it wasn't D&D, I'd still run the game and let her be the one to decide whether to show up or not.
The other is merely obstinate and unwilling to learn a new system, but I've gamed with him since 1984- he's a pretty good friend. (Usually.) He's also a good gamer within his narrow tastes (virtually Wizards Only as long as I've known him)- if you looked at one of his Wizards, its optimization would be immediately obvious. Part of that is because he's a math whiz- he naturally gravitated to choosing the optimal spells & feats in the game. He's also one of the 4 people who host our large group (as am I).
Excluding him from a campaign is difficult...however, I'm willing to do that as well. He does have other interests, after all, and he could make good use of the time to indulge in them.
The problem is that there is almost no point in trying- several of the other guys in the group, while not actually averse to playing other RPGs, are disinclined to do so because of their very real time constraints...and a LOT of online gaming. In the 10 years this group has been gaming together, the only other tabletop RPG played has been RIFTS...and that only lasted about 6 months. When the guys were into City of Heroes, I volunteered to run a superhero campaign. One guy expressed real interest, one expressed marginal, conditional interest ("I will if others will")...and the rest read my email without response.
I'm not entirely disheartened by this. I still design campaigns and adventures for other RPGs- I have 7 in the works stored on my PDA, covering modern fantasy, supers, sci-fi and other genres. Someday, I'll get a chance to run one.
And despite my frequent posts to this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=102706&page=3), I simply don't feel up to running a classic fantasy campaign these days- I'm somewhat burned out on it. Thus, right now, I'm not even running a campaign. I haven't for more than 2 years.
...but I have a doozy in the works.
Last edited:
Generally, I'm the same way...but if I'm not into it, I won't run it. Better an enthusiastic GM than me mailing it in.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
I'm not Danny, but I'll still tell you what I think about it:
We only play something we all agree on playing. It might include stuff someone's not too keen about, if he wants to give it a chance (often, you'll find that the aversion stems from bad experiences with lousy DMs and players, or simply differences in game stiles within the gaming group)
Anyway, we couldn't really play something with less than the full roster of players, because we're not exactly bursting at the seams with players.
We only play something we all agree on playing. It might include stuff someone's not too keen about, if he wants to give it a chance (often, you'll find that the aversion stems from bad experiences with lousy DMs and players, or simply differences in game stiles within the gaming group)
Anyway, we couldn't really play something with less than the full roster of players, because we're not exactly bursting at the seams with players.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
I think it's usually best that the GM runs what he's enthusiastic about. I'll play anything, but if I'm the GM, I'll run the stuff I like to run. That's just part of me being the GM. If the group wants to play something I don't enjoy running, that's fine, and I'll play, too -- it's just that someone else needs to be the GM, in that case.
Having a player refuse to play based on the system is incredibly rare, in my experience. I see it talked about all the time, though, so maybe I just don't attract that kind of player, which is good for me and good for that kind of player, I guess. It's self-correcting.
Having a player refuse to play based on the system is incredibly rare, in my experience. I see it talked about all the time, though, so maybe I just don't attract that kind of player, which is good for me and good for that kind of player, I guess. It's self-correcting.
We had one player who will play several systems, but when we mooted things other than D20 none of our choices really gelled with him - in his case, though, it was more that he was burnt out on RPGs in general. (Also, he's a self-confessed power gamer and we were talking about things like WFRP and Cthulhu - it just didn't gel with what he looks for in a game) But for the most part, everyone tries what's on offer: my current D&D game has a player who has, for three years straight now, complained about how much he hates D20, but he still turns up every Thursday. ;-)
But in my experience, I think it's a truly rare player who will play one game and only one. I suppose that might depend a bit on the environment: I met most of my players at an RPG club at Uni where there were always other things on. (And, in fact, I was the first D&D GM for a bit) But people who specifically join a D&D game and are then asked about changing to other things may well say "that's not what I came for": and tht's fair enough. I go to see comedies and action films with one of my friends at the cinema, but I don't ask her to go see horror films because I know she doesn't like them - it doesn't mean she's not my friend just because she doesn't want to do that!
So, if I suggested that I was going to run (say) Pendragon next and only one player wasn't up for that: well, my group is big enough to take a hit, and I know enough other RPG friends that I could rustle up a replacement anyway. I'd be a bit more tolerant of "I'll play anything bar X": I've usually got enough campaign ideas that I can think of something else if the first one is a no-no.
This is wise advise. I've been told once before by a player how much they'd love me to run something for them which I wasn't pumped about: in one case, a huge Wheel of Time fan with the D20 rules and the novels wanted me to run it for him. We could totally wrap the current campaign up, and he could lend me all these books, and while we're at it he's already generated a character, you should see it....
I told him that, ultimately, there was only one person who could run his dream game, and that was him. You can't really play in an RPG made-to-order - the wonderful idea in your head will only come to life with you behind the screen. Furthermore, a single player not being as keen on an idea as the rest isn't always the end of the game (at least one player, logically, must be the least enthused about any campaign) but if the GM is only going through the motions to appease others then it really, REALLY shows.
But in my experience, I think it's a truly rare player who will play one game and only one. I suppose that might depend a bit on the environment: I met most of my players at an RPG club at Uni where there were always other things on. (And, in fact, I was the first D&D GM for a bit) But people who specifically join a D&D game and are then asked about changing to other things may well say "that's not what I came for": and tht's fair enough. I go to see comedies and action films with one of my friends at the cinema, but I don't ask her to go see horror films because I know she doesn't like them - it doesn't mean she's not my friend just because she doesn't want to do that!
So, if I suggested that I was going to run (say) Pendragon next and only one player wasn't up for that: well, my group is big enough to take a hit, and I know enough other RPG friends that I could rustle up a replacement anyway. I'd be a bit more tolerant of "I'll play anything bar X": I've usually got enough campaign ideas that I can think of something else if the first one is a no-no.
Philotomy Jurament said:
This is wise advise. I've been told once before by a player how much they'd love me to run something for them which I wasn't pumped about: in one case, a huge Wheel of Time fan with the D20 rules and the novels wanted me to run it for him. We could totally wrap the current campaign up, and he could lend me all these books, and while we're at it he's already generated a character, you should see it....
I told him that, ultimately, there was only one person who could run his dream game, and that was him. You can't really play in an RPG made-to-order - the wonderful idea in your head will only come to life with you behind the screen. Furthermore, a single player not being as keen on an idea as the rest isn't always the end of the game (at least one player, logically, must be the least enthused about any campaign) but if the GM is only going through the motions to appease others then it really, REALLY shows.
One of the best experiences in gaming I ever had was with a group hosted by Alan Hench down in Austin, Tx.
We had a sizeable group- about 8 or so players- and eventually, everyone in the group either ran a campaign (or two, or three) in a system they liked, or they introduced some kind of board or card game for us to play.
Everybody had a PC for every campaign...except, of course, if the person really, really hated the system in question, and just hung out with us or didn't play on those weekends.
At the time, my main (really, almost exclusive) games were D&D, HERO, and Traveller. By keeping my mind open, I learned to play a host of other games in a wide variety of genres. It really improved my game...on both sides of the screen. I must have added a good 30+ RPGs to my play, and 60+ to my collection between 1991-1994.
So I kinda feel sorry for my chum, but, like I said, he's an adult.
We had a sizeable group- about 8 or so players- and eventually, everyone in the group either ran a campaign (or two, or three) in a system they liked, or they introduced some kind of board or card game for us to play.
Everybody had a PC for every campaign...except, of course, if the person really, really hated the system in question, and just hung out with us or didn't play on those weekends.
At the time, my main (really, almost exclusive) games were D&D, HERO, and Traveller. By keeping my mind open, I learned to play a host of other games in a wide variety of genres. It really improved my game...on both sides of the screen. I must have added a good 30+ RPGs to my play, and 60+ to my collection between 1991-1994.
So I kinda feel sorry for my chum, but, like I said, he's an adult.
Similar Threads
