D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[5ekyu]

While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.

I think they key here isn't the DM's pet campaign or the player for whom the particular system is a bête noire, but the other players in the group. If they're ambivalent about the DM's concept, better for the DM to make a change. If they're enthusiastic, though, the player with the problem may have to be the one to change their attitude.

Granted, this probably points more to the importance of saving strong aesthetic considerations for the internet, and not bringing them into casual social encounters. Nobody wants to hear your "TLJ ruined Star Wars" diatribe at the office Christmas party.

In the actual case in question - the other players wanted to play in a Stargate game and the player that was out had no problems with the hiatus and came back and played in future campaigns. it was common in this group for not everyone to play in every campaign - as we had different preferences and more players than seats.

So, you know it was the established social contract at work. Everybody had fun.

 

[Shasarak]

Why pit David against Goliath?

I would probably reverse the question and ask, why would you bring a sword to a sling fight?

 

[Aldarc]

Before the campaign starts there is no DM, so this cannot be bad DMing.

Wouldn't this also exclude the possibility of "bad players" before the game as well?

 

[S'mon]

Wouldn't this also exclude the possibility of "bad players" before the game as well?

Yes! They can't be players before they're playing!

 

[Aldarc]

Yes! They can't be players before they're playing!

Players only love you when they're playing; say DMs they will come and they will go.

 

[Hussar]

While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.

I think they key here isn't the DM's pet campaign or the player for whom the particular system is a bête noire, but the other players in the group. If they're ambivalent about the DM's concept, better for the DM to make a change. If they're enthusiastic, though, the player with the problem may have to be the one to change their attitude.

Granted, this probably points more to the importance of saving strong aesthetic considerations for the internet, and not bringing them into casual social encounters. Nobody wants to hear your "TLJ ruined Star Wars" diatribe at the office Christmas party.

Fair enough. And, let's be honest here, it's pretty likely, unless there is some really compelling stuff, that the player will change their attitude.

But, the point that keeps getting hammered home by some in this thread is that the onus is always on the player to change attitudes and that the DM never has to. The player is expected to accept whatever the DM is offering, or walk away from the game.

And, I'd point out, in the specific example, we had a DM who specifically knew beforehand that the player would hate this idea to the point where the DM DIDN'T INVITE the player. The player never even got the chance to have a say in things. The player got ejected from the group becaue the DM wanted to play something that he knew that that player wouldn't like.

There are degrees here.
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - unless the DM can only run one game, your argument kinda doesn't work. The DM here is specifically pitching an idea that he KNOWS that the player will hate. It's deliberate. It's not like the DM created a campaign, got it all ready, and then learned that the player wouldn't like the idea. The DM did all that in FULL KNOWLEDGE that that player would hate it. And then went a step further to eject the player from the group BEFORE even pitching the idea.

No one is saying that a DM has to run something he or she doesn't like. But, unless the DM is so monomaniacally focused on a single concept, it's not like the DM couldn't just pitch another idea that does appeal to the entire group. And then find a different day and a different group to play his pet project.

Do players have to adapt and be open minded? Of course. But, that same standard applies to good DM's as well. Do you deliberately pitch ideas to your group knowing full well that at least one of the players will hate it? I sure don't. Despite my deep abiding love of Battletech, I know that I won't be able to play that with my RPG group. They don't want it. So, should I then just declare that the next campaign will be Battletech and anyone who doesn't like it can GTFO?

And that makes me a GOOD DM?

 

[S'mon]

Do you deliberately pitch ideas to your group knowing full well that at least one of the players will hate it? I sure don't.

Personally, I come up with something I'd like to run then go looking for players who'd like to play it. This may include old friends and people I've never met before.

I think if the focus is The Group not The Game as with your group then it is necessary to find something everyone in The Group wants to play. Personally I would do much less GMing in that situation since I'd need to be enthusiastic about GMing something that suited everyone in The Group. Eg I know people who won't play 5e D&D, if I wanted them in The Group I wouldn't be able to run my favourite system.

 

[5ekyu]

Personally, I come up with something I'd like to run then go looking for players who'd like to play it. This may include old friends and people I've never met before.

I think if the focus is The Group not The Game as with your group then it is necessary to find something everyone in The Group wants to play. Personally I would do much less GMing in that situation since I'd need to be enthusiastic about GMing something that suited everyone in The Group. Eg I know people who won't play 5e D&D, if I wanted them in The Group I wouldn't be able to run my favourite system.

Yup... in the case in question we had been working off and on with one-shots with the designers as part of the playtest of that Starget via Spycraft game. Once the game came out there was intereste among some in playing in a campaign with it. So, when the current campaign wrapped after what was likely its 2-3 year run, the gang decided to try Stargate and i had the discussion with the one player who had not done much in the playtest - but had done some - that the next campaign would be Stargate and due to his well established problem with any capture scenarios at all and that being a fairly solid core part of Stargate - i would not be asking him because it would be a very bad fit.

As observed when this came up and ignored by some over and over - the player was fine with it and joined back in with the next game we ran and for many after that.

We had players in and out as campaigns switched all the time - we did not choose to limit ourselves to only ever running a game/system/style that required everybody to be included to play - which was good because we tended to have more players than slots anyway.

That tended to give others opportinities to GM or to play in other games etc etc etc.

Nobody was kicked from the group - as we did more than just RPG together.

But then, we also dont limit our meals together to only things that everybody will eat - that means sometimes groups get togehter to go get pizza,others get together to go get chinese, seafood, etc.

groups, friendships, relationships do vary between people a lot, i have found, so to me I get that some folks have problems seeing that.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro - unless the DM can only run one game, your argument kinda doesn't work. The DM here is specifically pitching an idea that he KNOWS that the player will hate. It's deliberate. It's not like the DM created a campaign, got it all ready, and then learned that the player wouldn't like the idea. The DM did all that in FULL KNOWLEDGE that that player would hate it. And then went a step further to eject the player from the group BEFORE even pitching the idea.

The fundamental point remains the same, the DM has spent his money on a game that he and the other players want to play... your argument is that they shouldn't get to play what they want because one player (as opposed to the majority of the group) should be catered to when it comes to their specific preferences. Honestly even as a player vs. DM I wouldn't be cool with this.

No one is saying that a DM has to run something he or she doesn't like. But, unless the DM is so monomaniacally focused on a single concept, it's not like the DM couldn't just pitch another idea that does appeal to the entire group. And then find a different day and a different group to play his pet project.

Hey if the DM has the time and availability no one is suggesting this isn't a viable solution. That said many DM's don't have the time to participate and prep for multiple campaigns. And I'm sorry but if he doesn't why shouldn't he get to play the game he's really jonesing for... especially if everyone in the group except one player is also jonesing to play this specific game?

Leisure time is limited and in this instance for some reason you seem to be asserting that the dissenting player's leisure time is somehow more valuable or more important than the DM's (and arguably the rest of the groups). Nope not buying it. You're claiming the DM doesn't have to run something he doesn't like but the truth is he doesn't get what he does like either and running a game that you are lukewarm about is in no way comparable to running something you are really excited and invested in.

Do players have to adapt and be open minded? Of course. But, that same standard applies to good DM's as well. Do you deliberately pitch ideas to your group knowing full well that at least one of the players will hate it? I sure don't. Despite my deep abiding love of Battletech, I know that I won't be able to play that with my RPG group. They don't want it. So, should I then just declare that the next campaign will be Battletech and anyone who doesn't like it can GTFO?

So if you never run anything except what caters to each of your players specific preferences... when does their adaptability or open mindedness come into play?

Also to answer your question... yes. Two recent instances...

1. I have done an adult only game when I've wanted to run a game with more mature themes or subject matter that may not be appropriate for the younger members of our group (Most recently Unknown Armies). Do I do it often? Nope, have I done it before yep and I'm glad I did as it gave the adult members in the group a play experience that we wouldn't have been able to have if we felt obligated to only run games appropriate for the younger members in our group.

2. I have a single player who really doesn't like Shadow of the Demon Lord. He can't vocalize what it is he doesn't like about the game but he refuses to play it and I'm ok with that... that said I have invested in the game because I like it and enjoy running it and most of the others in our group have a ball when playing it... Am I a bad DM because every so often we do a SotDL campaign and the player who doesn't like it sits out? I don't think so and neither do my players or the one who sits it out. IMO he;s being mature and not setting his personal preferences above the groups fun.

And that makes me a GOOD DM?

I don't think it objectively makes you a good or bad DM... you're the one making this a black an white thing when IMO it's very much a gray area.

 

[5ekyu]

The fundamental point remains the same, the DM has spent his money on a game that he and the other players want to play... your argument is that they shouldn't get to play what they want because one player (as opposed to the majority of the group) should be catered to when it comes to their specific preferences. Honestly even as a player vs. DM I wouldn't be cool with this.



Hey if the DM has the time and availability no one is suggesting this isn't a viable solution. That said many DM's don't have the time to participate and prep for multiple campaigns. And I'm sorry but if he doesn't why shouldn't he get to play the game he's really jonesing for... especially if everyone in the group except one player is also jonesing to play this specific game?

Leisure time is limited and in this instance for some reason you seem to be asserting that the dissenting player's leisure time is somehow more valuable or more important than the DM's (and arguably the rest of the groups). Nope not buying it. You're claiming the DM doesn't have to run something he doesn't like but the truth is he doesn't get what he does like either and running a game that you are lukewarm about is in no way comparable to running something you are really excited and invested in.



So if you never run anything except what caters to each of your players specific preferences... when does their adaptability or open mindedness come into play?

Also to answer your question... yes. Two recent instances...

1. I have done an adult only game when I've wanted to run a game with more mature themes or subject matter that may not be appropriate for the younger members of our group (Most recently Unknown Armies). Do I do it often? Nope, have I done it before yep and I'm glad I did as it gave the adult members in the group a play experience that we wouldn't have been able to have if we felt obligated to only run games appropriate for the younger members in our group.

2. I have a single player who really doesn't like Shadow of the Demon Lord. He can't vocalize what it is he doesn't like about the game but he refuses to play it and I'm ok with that... that said I have invested in the game because I like it and enjoy running it and most of the others in our group have a ball when playing it... Am I a bad DM because every so often we do a SotDL campaign and the player who doesn't like it sits out? I don't think so and neither do my players or the one who sits it out. IMO he;s being mature and not setting his personal preferences above the groups fun.



I don't think it objectively makes you a good or bad DM... you're the one making this a black an white thing when IMO it's very much a gray area.

Similar with us and VtM - more adult themes plus more solo shenanigans led to smaller group and different players than our four color super-team games.

Really, what is being painted as bad or dickish here isnt DMing, it's the group's social contract preferences. I can get that it's not necessarily another group's cup of tea or how somebody views relationships and obligations but the one true wsy these relationships is just not how we tend to view things.