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

[Imaro]

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?

This depends on too many individual factors for each group to have an absolute and always applicable yes or no answer...

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

And i would say that is the correct answer for you. Now when you try to apply said answer as a general principle or shame those who don't agree by admonishing them as bad DM's... well that's where the trouble starts.

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?

When would this ever be the case? Are you saying the group only ever plays the game you don't want to... never changing games or campaigns... ever? also that I consider these people my friends but literally do nothing else with them besides game once a week and that's all we ever do together and the only time we ever associate? If so I feel like we are getting into the realm of the absurd (and I'm not sure I would consider them actual friends... but that's just me).

If that's not the case then I still have other interests outside of gaming that I can pursue for the time being and other friends I can hang with until they play something more to my liking. What you are describing and the analogies you are using, IMO, are starting to feel a little like an unhealthy dynamic for a group of "friends".

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?

Yes and I gave you 2 examples of when I've actually done it.

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.

Well that may be part of the rub right there... if I consider you a "friend" we are interacting beyond once a week in a game. If not I would consider you an associate but not a friend.

 

[Ovinomancer]

He's been doing this to people for a long time. He's probably hit me with a Strawman somewhere between 100-200 times, and he has been incorrect 100% of the time. Why? Because he's not answering me. Instead, he's answering himself, which I suppose allows him to be correct about the altered argument, but has yet to allow him to be correct regarding the arguments I put forward.

Okay.

 

[Shasarak]

Fixed this for you.

But for many of the same reasons that others have pointed out, I simply disagree. The DM is the final arbiter of the campaign setting, rulings and style. I encourage feedback and take it into consideration for the games I run, but as a DM my vote counts more than anyone else's vote. For that matter so does my wife's vote.

I have seen at least one post in this thread giving as an example of a bad DM someone who gave special treatment to their wife/girlfriend.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

IMO all this talk about how to decide what game to play and with who has very little to do with DMing in the first place. "DM flaws" I would consider as things that happen in the game rather than around it.

 

[Uchawi]

Usually it is a player at the table, including the DM, that is not willing to talk about issues, or only supports one style of play. That gets old or boring really quick.

 

[Oofta]

I have seen at least one post in this thread giving as an example of a bad DM someone who gave special treatment to their wife/girlfriend.

I don't give my wife special treatment, her character has the same risk and rewards as anyone else. She wouldn't want it any other way, nor would I when she'd DMing.

However, I'm realistic in that as much as I like my players they could get a job out of state (or I could) tomorrow. I know my wife is going to be in my campaign for the long haul. So yes, her vote on what the next campaign is going to be and whether we allow option ___ has more weight than others.

 

[Umbran]

He's been doing this to people for a long time. He's probably hit me with a Strawman somewhere between 100-200 times, and he has been incorrect 100% of the time. Why? Because he's not answering me. Instead, he's answering himself, which I suppose allows him to be correct about the altered argument, but has yet to allow him to be correct regarding the arguments I put forward.

The following applies to *EVERYONE* here.

Please don't make this personal. The weakness of the argument should be sufficient. By making note of your opinions of their character, you are committing an ad hominem argument of your own. Ironic, but not actually helpful.

Between that, and the fact that it gets you the hairy eyeball from moderators, just don't do it.

Is this sufficiently clear? If not, please take it to PM or e-mail with a member of the moderating staff. Thanks.

 

[Imaro]

I don't give my wife special treatment, her character has the same risk and rewards as anyone else. She wouldn't want it any other way, nor would I when she'd DMing.

However, I'm realistic in that as much as I like my players they could get a job out of state (or I could) tomorrow. I know my wife is going to be in my campaign for the long haul. So yes, her vote on what the next campaign is going to be and whether we allow option ___ has more weight than others.

This brings up another interesting axis on [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's objective player over DM stance... What if the DM is more committed to playing than the player? If I have a player who hates horror games but is often late or cancels often enough to be noticeable (but we still enjoy playing with him in a casual sense)... should their preference still be held in higher regard than mine as the DM who shows up to every session? Should their preferences hold as much weight as everyone else's in the group? This is why I don't like this blanket... "Not catering to a player" = "Bad DM" rhetoric. Way to many factors to make that a blanket statement.

 

[Oofta]

This brings up another interesting axis on [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's objective player over DM stance... What if the DM is more committed to playing than the player? If I have a player who hates horror games but is often late or cancels often enough to be noticeable (but we still enjoy playing with him in a casual sense)... should their preference still be held in higher regard than mine as the DM who shows up to every session? Should their preferences hold as much weight as everyone else's in the group? This is why I don't like this blanket... "Not catering to a player" = "Bad DM" rhetoric. Way to many factors to make that a blanket statement.

My point all along has been that the person who is most committed to a campaign is the DM. Yes, everyone else (hopefully) contributes, but it's always going to be to varying degrees. Some people just want to show up and roll dice. Some people love the last campaign and want to continue building on that world with the next generation. Some people are casual and fun to play with but can't be relied upon.

All of these factors play in when I'm deciding what to do for my next campaign, and I'm just being honest when I say that our group doesn't have one person one vote. I will always try to work with someone to accommodate what they want, but I get veto rights. Hence drow (they don't make sense in my campaign) and evil characters are not allowed. On the other hand if I suggest an all-dwarf party (there's almost always that one person that objects, even though everyone is always happy to play an all elf party ) I'll work with them to see if we can come up with a compromise. I also pitch several ideas and see what people want to do.

To me, the DM always has veto authority over all aspects of the game because they are the Dungeon Master. Players? Not so much.

 

[Maxperson]

My point all along has been that the person who is most committed to a campaign is the DM. Yes, everyone else (hopefully) contributes, but it's always going to be to varying degrees. Some people just want to show up and roll dice. Some people love the last campaign and want to continue building on that world with the next generation. Some people are casual and fun to play with but can't be relied upon.

I'm going to nitpick a bit. The DM does the most work, but commitment can be equal from the players. If the DM and two players show up for every game, ready to play and are all invested, they are equally committed.

In my game I have two players who make every game, one who makes 2/3 due to life, and one who makes about 50% due to life and being young. When it comes to which campaigns to play, the players who show up every game are given more weight than the ones who don't show up as often. When it comes to the direction the campaigns go during game play, the ones here every week have more influence since they are present to make the decisions more than the other two.

Things do not have to be equal among all players and the DM in order to be fair.