DM refuses to switch; players want to

[Tewligan]

One last note, which I wasn't going to mention, but it sticks in my craw. Your DM really ought to just give it a shot. I think its a, erm, <insert rude name> who just dictatorially tells players what they're playing. It's not right in my opinion. Saying anything else would be specious so I won't, but in general DMs are there for players, not the other way around.

Except the DM isn't telling people what they're playing, he's telling them what he's willing to run. DM's aren't just there for players - they're running a game for their own enjoyment as well. Why should the DM be bullied into doing something with his spare time that he won't enjoy? That's ridiculous.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) in general DMs are there for players, not the other way around.

Does he get a safe word?


In my experience, trying to get someone to run a game they are not interested in running makes both the DM and the player unhappy. As a player, if you want to try out a DMs campaign, go for it. If it does not suit you, find a different DM.

 

[The Cardinal]

One thing I'm curious about is why WoTC decided to lauch 4th edition in such bad economic times? Clearly, we've entered a recession, and it's going to get way worse before it gets better.

QFT

If my players were wacky enough to push for a 4e game?
I'd make them pay - literally.
For the books *and* for my services as a DM.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Does he get a safe word?


In my experience, trying to get someone to run a game they are not interested in running makes both the DM and the player unhappy. As a player, if you want to try out a DMs campaign, go for it. If it does not suit you, find a different DM.

I agree. Forcing someone to do something is never a good idea if you rely on him in some way. And you should never do it if rely on him to deliver fun.

I remember the few anti-4E playtest posts where I only got the impression that the people tried to playtest the game more out of a sense of duty then out of sense of "this could be fun". And it never worked out.
On the other hand, most pro-4E playtest posts seem to come from people who already expected to like it and focused on the fun-stuff.

Forcing someone into a game he does't like is just not a good idea.

 

[Zinovia]

QFT
If my players were wacky enough to push for a 4e game?
I'd make them pay - literally.
For the books *and* for my services as a DM.

The books I can see, but mercenary DM'ing? That's a new one. Quite an audacious idea actually. I can envision the bill now.

For services rendered:
Pre-game preparation time: 4 hours @ $5 / hour = $20
Travel 15 miles @ 40 cents / mile: $6
DM supplies (Mountain Dew, Cheetos, minis) : $19.47
Headache medication (for dealing with convoluted backstories): $4.29
Bribes (x10 on your die roll, bonus magic items, deus ex machina): $50
Hourly charges for DM'ing: 6 hours @ $8 / hour = $48

If you don't want to run 4E, then don't. Hopefully your players still want to play 3.5 or one of them is willing to DM. I wouldn't pay anyone a clipped copper to DM for me. D&D is supposed to be a game among friends. I expect your post was deliberate hyperbole, which worked if you're trying to push people's buttons. Good luck in your future endeavors, may they be profitable.

 

[Eldragon]

If a particular player refuses to play 4e, and you fear splitting the group, you could always switch to a different system.

We are going to be doing Shadowrun for a while for that very reason.

 

[Agamon]

I see the DM/player relation more as symbiotic. Yes, the DM is there to make sure the player have fun, but if the DM isn't having fun, trust me, neither are the players.

So, no, the players should not expect a demand that they get what they want when the DM is dead set against it, but the DM shouldn't expect to be DMing those players for much longer either.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...in general DMs are there for players, not the other way around.

Man, I could not agree less.

The DM puts 90% or the prep and effort into the game. I think that gets him the right to make a few choices.

Players need to (1) have a character, (2)show up and (3) keep track of the story.

All players (by default) manage the first one

Most players can manage the second most of the time

About half of the players can handle some version of number three (though they might forget other PC's names, which country they are in, what side they're on etc.).

I think based on just plain, solid effort DM's are more important to the game than player.

They are certainly less easily replaced.

 

[Morrus]

I have to say, if one guy refuses to go along with the rest of the group, he's not being much of a friend.

Quite the contrary. The DM's the one who has to put in the most work. insiting that he undertake that with a game he doesn't want to play is remarkably selfish in my book. Why can't one of the other players run the game, then?

Someone who has been putting all the effort into DMing a game for you is contractually bound to continue doing so for the rest of his life against his will. If he doesn't want to run the game, then nobody should be trying to make him do so.

 

[N0Man]

Run the game yourself, and invite the DM and others to play. If he's one of those "I refuse to play 4E under any circumstances" types, then his loss for being bullheaded.

4E is way easier to run than 3E is, and I think a lot more fun to run as well.