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

[Hussar]

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.

Ahh, the old guild trip chestnut. I spent the money, I did the work, so you have to do what I want to do. It's my ball, so I get to make the rules? Yeah, no thanks.

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?

Because it's an incredibly douchey thing to do to eject a perfectly good player just because you want to run something? It's not like you HAVE to run 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.

Again, we're back to DM's who are apparently one trick ponies who can only run one game or one campaign and have no other ideas that they might like. I've never seen a DM worth his or her salt who didn't have three or four campaigns percolating in the back of their minds even when they're in the middle of a campaign, never minding at the beginning of a new one.

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?

There's a difference between catering to specific preferences and not playing something you know someone HATES. Maybe it's because I don't, and never have, played with people who only have one taste and never deviate from that one thing. I couldn't imagine playing with someone like that.

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.

So, did you eject the younger members of the group from your regular game time or did you find a new time and continue to run for the larger 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.

You say, "every so often", so, I presume this isn't a regular thing? You haven't ejected the player from regular play? Or, did you tell this player, "Nope, sorry, for the next several months, you don't get to play with us".

There are degrees here.

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.

Whereas, I do. The group is more important to me than any given campaign. I value spending time with my friends more than being able to run some game that I like that I know Dave doesn't. It's all about priorities. My priority is always the group. For others, apparently, the priority is running a game and the group is secondary. I don't roll that way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ahh, the old guild trip chestnut. I spent the money, I did the work, so you have to do what I want to do. It's my ball, so I get to make the rules? Yeah, no thanks.



Because it's an incredibly douchey thing to do to eject a perfectly good player just because you want to run something? It's not like you HAVE to run this specific game.


Again, we're back to DM's who are apparently one trick ponies who can only run one game or one campaign and have no other ideas that they might like. I've never seen a DM worth his or her salt who didn't have three or four campaigns percolating in the back of their minds even when they're in the middle of a campaign, never minding at the beginning of a new one.



There's a difference between catering to specific preferences and not playing something you know someone HATES. Maybe it's because I don't, and never have, played with people who only have one taste and never deviate from that one thing. I couldn't imagine playing with someone like that.



So, did you eject the younger members of the group from your regular game time or did you find a new time and continue to run for the larger group?



You say, "every so often", so, I presume this isn't a regular thing? You haven't ejected the player from regular play? Or, did you tell this player, "Nope, sorry, for the next several months, you don't get to play with us".

There are degrees here.



Whereas, I do. The group is more important to me than any given campaign. I value spending time with my friends more than being able to run some game that I like that I know Dave doesn't. It's all about priorities. My priority is always the group. For others, apparently, the priority is running a game and the group is secondary. I don't roll that way.

So, your problem is being a bad friend, not a bad DM.

 

[Hussar]

So, your problem is being a bad friend, not a bad DM.

Fair enough if you want to phrase it that way, sure. It's a social activity. Being a bad friend makes me a bad DM as well. It would be pretty hard to be one and not the other.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough if you want to phrase it that way, sure. It's a social activity. Being a bad friend makes me a bad DM as well. It would be pretty hard to be one and not the other.

It can be done.

One person I used to know was quite a bad friend (to say the least!) and fairly awful to have in any game as a player, but was a surprisingly good DM. I wasn't in his game for long mostly due to time constraints but the bits I saw were always fun and entertaining, and the "media coverage" from others in the game showed this to consistently be the case.

 

[Imaro]

Ahh, the old guild trip chestnut. I spent the money, I did the work, so you have to do what I want to do. It's my ball, so I get to make the rules? Yeah, no thanks.

Why do you continuously gloss over the fact that it's not just the DM who wants to run this particular game but also the other members (except for one) who want to play it?

Because it's an incredibly douchey thing to do to eject a perfectly good player just because you want to run something? It's not like you HAVE to run this specific game.

And I think it's an incredibly douchey thing to do to force the entire group to miss out on a game/experience they will enjoy because you don't personally enjoy it. It's not like you HAVE to play in this specific campaign or that the group will only ever play that game.

Stepping outside of gaming for a minute... I am not a fan of basketball, don't enjoy watching or playing it but nearly everyone in my current gaming group does and they play on Sunday mornings, once a week as long as weather permits. I'll play once in a while but in general because I don't enjoy it I choose not to play with them. It would never occur to me that they are bad friends because they don't change from playing basketball to football or jogging because that's what I like, even though most of them enjoy those activities as well.

Again, we're back to DM's who are apparently one trick ponies who can only run one game or one campaign and have no other ideas that they might like. I've never seen a DM worth his or her salt who didn't have three or four campaigns percolating in the back of their minds even when they're in the middle of a campaign, never minding at the beginning of a new one.

First... no one said anything about a DM being only able to run one game or campaign... but again if I know I would highly prefer one over the others and all of my players except one do as well then why should I run something that brings everyone less enjoyment... well everyone except the one player whose putting his own desires above every other person in the group.

Also... wanting to run a particular game over others has nothing to do with the quality of the DM as you seem to be implying above... in the same way I don't think a player who for some strange reason won't or can't suck it up and play in a game that all of his friends really want to play in speaks to him or her being a low quality player...

There's a difference between catering to specific preferences and not playing something you know someone HATES. Maybe it's because I don't, and never have, played with people who only have one taste and never deviate from that one thing. I couldn't imagine playing with someone like that.

It's funny but those both sound like preferences (like and dislike) to me. i also find it funny that you keep trotting out these strawmen... whose arguing for one taste and never deviating? What are you even talking about?

So, did you eject the younger members of the group from your regular game time or did you find a new time and continue to run for the larger group?

The younger members weren't a part of that campaign but joined back once it was over. They had other interests and activities (many of which the older members don't participate in) that they enjoy and they were more than ok with playing a little more Fortnite online with their friends from school, going up to the park to play basketball or various other things.

You say, "every so often", so, I presume this isn't a regular thing? You haven't ejected the player from regular play? Or, did you tell this player, "Nope, sorry, for the next several months, you don't get to play with us".

Well SotDL has a very specific campaign structure that doesn't last long about 1x a week for about 2 1/2 to 3 months. And yes the player chose not to participate but he was back and part of the group once we moved on to a different game.

Whereas, I do. The group is more important to me than any given campaign. I value spending time with my friends more than being able to run some game that I like that I know Dave doesn't. It's all about priorities. My priority is always the group. For others, apparently, the priority is running a game and the group is secondary. I don't roll that way.

Well I do other things besides game with my friends... but then we recognize that we don't all have to always do the same things at the same time together. We have things we enjoy doing as a full group, things we enjoy doing with subsets of each other as well as individual interests we pursue without each other or with other friends outside this circle. This seems healthier overall IMO than some type of social contract where we all have to be enjoying something or none of us do it. But hey whatever floats your boat.

 

[5ekyu]

Why do you continuously gloss over the fact that it's not just the DM who wants to run this particular game but also the other members (except for one) who want to play it?



And I think it's an incredibly douchey thing to do to force the entire group to miss out on a game/experience they will enjoy because you don't personally enjoy it. It's not like you HAVE to play in this specific campaign or that the group will only ever play that game.

Stepping outside of gaming for a minute... I am not a fan of basketball, don't enjoy watching or playing it but nearly everyone in my current gaming group does and they play on Sunday mornings, once a week as long as weather permits. I'll play once in a while but in general because I don't enjoy it I choose not to play with them. It would never occur to me that they are bad friends because they don't change from playing basketball to football or jogging because that's what I like, even though most of them enjoy those activities as well.



First... no one said anything about a DM being only able to run one game or campaign... but again if I know I would highly prefer one over the others and all of my players except one do as well then why should I run something that brings everyone less enjoyment... well everyone except the one player whose putting his own desires above every other person in the group.

Also... wanting to run a particular game over others has nothing to do with the quality of the DM as you seem to be implying above... in the same way I don't think a player who for some strange reason won't or can't suck it up and play in a game that all of his friends really want to play in speaks to him or her being a low quality player...



It's funny but those both sound like preferences (like and dislike) to me. i also find it funny that you keep trotting out these strawmen... whose arguing for one taste and never deviating? What are you even talking about?



The younger members weren't a part of that campaign but joined back once it was over. They had other interests and activities (many of which the older members don't participate in) that they enjoy and they were more than ok with playing a little more Fortnite online with their friends from school, going up to the park to play basketball or various other things.



Well SotDL has a very specific campaign structure that doesn't last long about 1x a week for about 2 1/2 to 3 months. And yes the player chose not to participate but he was back and part of the group once we moved on to a different game.



Well I do other things besides game with my friends... but then we recognize that we don't all have to always do the same things at the same time together. We have things we enjoy doing as a full group, things we enjoy doing with subsets of each other as well as individual interests we pursue without each other or with other friends outside this circle. This seems healthier overall IMO than some type of social contract where we all have to be enjoying something or none of us do it. But hey whatever floats your boat.

Sounds like a working social group to me.

I do know this much... We tend to treat campaigns and their obligations like dating - at most like going steady but not marriage. There is no lifelong promise that we will always forever only run games everybody will like.

Obviously if we did view it as a marriage with permanent content veto etc... We would be a lot more selective of players and less willing to try out new folks.

If a social group needs to have everybody included everytime and no outside the box already established to sustain itself, thats fine. If it works, great.

But our group has a long established history of games where some dont play and others do and rotating thru lotsa different systems, themes, styles etc.

Its been working so far and lets us kerp pulling in new blood... Which is actually quite important given our ages. I mean, how else would we get blood of virgins to bathe in to preserve our youth if not as the "cost" for PC ressurection?

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you continuously gloss over the fact that it's not just the DM who wants to run this particular game but also the other members (except for one) who want to play it?

Because his entire argument hinges on the DM being on a power trip and falls apart when you add in the other players.

It's funny but those both sound like preferences (like and dislike) to me. i also find it funny that you keep trotting out these strawmen... whose arguing for one taste and never deviating? What are you even talking about?

As an English teacher, it's odd that he uses a veritable straw army in his arguments. It would be nice to see a straight response from him.

 

[Hussar]

Why do you continuously gloss over the fact that it's not just the DM who wants to run this particular game but also the other members (except for one) who want to play it?

To me, it's not about what you want but, rather what people don't want. Someone doesn't want X. If we do X, then we will exclude that someone. Is it worth doing X if that means that that someone is excluded?

As far as gaming is concerned, I would say no.

/snip
Stepping outside of gaming for a minute... I am not a fan of basketball, don't enjoy watching or playing it but nearly everyone in my current gaming group does and they play on Sunday mornings, once a week as long as weather permits. I'll play once in a while but in general because I don't enjoy it I choose not to play with them. It would never occur to me that they are bad friends because they don't change from playing basketball to football or jogging because that's what I like, even though most of them enjoy those activities as well.

True. And we don't have to do everything together. Now, imagine that the group only plays basketball to the exclusion of all else. Would you still feel the same?

First... no one said anything about a DM being only able to run one game or campaign... but again if I know I would highly prefer one over the others and all of my players except one do as well then why should I run something that brings everyone less enjoyment... well everyone except the one player whose putting his own desires above every other person in the group.

Also... wanting to run a particular game over others has nothing to do with the quality of the DM as you seem to be implying above... in the same way I don't think a player who for some strange reason won't or can't suck it up and play in a game that all of his friends really want to play in speaks to him or her being a low quality player...

Remember the example though. We haven't actually started play. You are sitting down, thinking about the next campaign you would like to run for your group. Would you deliberately choose to create a campaign knowing that one of your players would be excluded?

The younger members weren't a part of that campaign but joined back once it was over. They had other interests and activities (many of which the older members don't participate in) that they enjoy and they were more than ok with playing a little more Fortnite online with their friends from school, going up to the park to play basketball or various other things.

Fair enough then. No harm no foul.

Well I do other things besides game with my friends... but then we recognize that we don't all have to always do the same things at the same time together. We have things we enjoy doing as a full group, things we enjoy doing with subsets of each other as well as individual interests we pursue without each other or with other friends outside this circle. This seems healthier overall IMO than some type of social contract where we all have to be enjoying something or none of us do it. But hey whatever floats your boat.

Ah, now there's a difference. My gaming friends are just that. Gaming friends. They are the people I game with. I don't do stuff with them outside of gaming. So, all of these other things aren't available to me.

Because his entire argument hinges on the DM being on a power trip and falls apart when you add in the other players.



As an English teacher, it's odd that he uses a veritable straw army in his arguments. It would be nice to see a straight response from him.

Wow, dude. You are REALLY hung up on that aren't you? Look, just take your spanking and move on. You made a mistake, you got called on it by someone who knows more on that particular topic than you do. My being an English teacher does not have any real bearing on this, other than your constant ad hominem attacks.

But, just to be clear, what am I not answering clearly? Everyone else in this thread apparently has not had any problem understanding my point, but, obviously I need to clarify something for you.

 

[Hussar]

I think I see where I've gone wrong here. People are phrasing things kinda from the other end of where I am.

Just to repeat from last post:

It's not about doing what you want. It's about not doing things that someone at the table doesn't want to do. It's about the table, as a group, putting forth the things that they don't want to do and then the group agreeing not to do those things.

Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don't want X because I don't like X and I'm the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that's the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I'm of a mind that I'll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

Which means that as a DM, I need to implicitly trust that the players are acting in good faith, same as they have to trust that I am too.

No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], it's not about power tripping. It's about DM's who are incapable of checking their ego at the door. Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM. Anyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That's easy. There's no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.

Consensus is messy as Hell. It's difficult. It's slow. It's never the easy way.

But, it does give the absolute best results.

 

[S'mon]

I think I see where I've gone wrong here. People are phrasing things kinda from the other end of where I am.

Just to repeat from last post:

It's not about doing what you want. It's about not doing things that someone at the table doesn't want to do.

You know Hussar, if you just replaced "you" with "I" in your arguments, I bet you wouldn't get a rise out of anyone.
AFAICS your approach is perfectly reasonable for your own social situation, of a continuing gaming group that wants to stick together and not be divided up. And you recognise other people have other social situations. But because you use "you" so much, it comes across as you telling everyone what is best for them and for every situation.