D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Greg K]

It is more "I feel like putting work into and spending time playing this game. Who wants to play in it? Alice, Bob are in, great!. Cheryl isn't? OK, let me know if you change your mind and I'll let you know when there are other options. I'll call Dave, Elizabeth and Fred to see if they're interested."

I don't get a stronger vote; I get to pick what I want to spend my time on and each and every player gets to pick what he wants to spend his time on. Hopefully, he wants to spend his time playing the same game I am going to run. If not, it is no biggie, we'll get together at other times for other things. If a player really wants to use a character I'm not willing to run in the current situation then I'm sure he can find a game where that character will fit swimmingly. Or he can run something and I'll look to see if I want to play in his campaign. It is not like I am uniquely qualified to operate the GM screen; there are other GMs. Don't like my campaign constraints? Free the player slot for someone who does.

This sums up my feelings exactly. We are all grown-ups responsible for how we choose to spend our time. I am going to offer a campaign that I will enjoy running. You don't like what I am offering and, therefore, don't want to play? No problem. Find another activity you would enjoy, find another table, or start up your own campaign. We will do something together on another day.

 

[Shasarak]

And you not playing is, perfectly fine with me. When I run, I state this is the setting that I am running (house rules, campaign rules, etc. are all stated up front). If you are interested in what I am offering, our styles and influences mesh (there is an interview process), and there is room, I will give you a seat on a trial basis. However, you are agreeing to play what I am offering. If you are not interested, there is no hard feelings. Different tastes and all that. However, no player is entitled to a seat simply because we both play D&D.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are no Gary Gygax so I would not go through an "interview" to play in your game. I have enough experience to know that the very fact that you would want to do an interview is a red flag to warn me off.

 

[Greg K]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are no Gary Gygax so I would not go through an "interview" to play in your game. I have enough experience to know that the very fact that you would want to do an interview is a red flag to warn me off.

Well, interviewing is how you get to learn if playstyles, preferences, etc. match. I want to save myself and the player from a bad experience if are wants for the game do not match.Too many people just say "Hey, I am running D&D. Make up a character" only to find out that they don't have the same playstyle and tastes. They just assume everyone has the same likes and preferences in the game. Often, this leads to conflicts, bad blood, players whining on the internet about jerk DMs, and DMs complaining on the internet about entitled players. If they talked ahead of time, they could have avoided playing with one another and saved each other the aggravation- no gaming is better than bad gaming on both sides.

As for not being Gary Gygax, my longtime players over the years say that I am better However, if you had written that I am no Rel, Kamikaze Midget (I believe that is now I'm a Banana), and a few others with huge followings in the storytime hour, I would, probably, agree (edit: add Piratecat to the list. I knew that I was forgetting someone and he was definitely the one of whom I was thinking).

 

[Shasarak]

Well, interviewing is how you get to learn if playstyles, preferences, etc. match. I want to save myself and the player from a bad experience if are wants for the game do not match.Too many people just say "Hey, I am running D&D. Make up a character" only to find out that they don't have the same playstyle and tastes. They just assume everyone has the same likes and preferences in the game. Often, this leads to conflicts, bad blood, players whining on the internet about jerk DMs, and DMs complaining on the internet about entitled players. If they talked ahead of time, they could have avoided playing with one another and saved each other the aggravation- no gaming is better than bad gaming on both sides.

I certainly agree that no gaming is better then bad gaming which is why when I see a Red Flag it is better to act fast. Waiting for confirmation is just asking for trouble.

As for not being Gary Gygax, my longtime players over the years say that I am better However, if you had written that I am no Rel, Kamikaze Midget (I believe that is now I am a Banana), and a few others with huge followings in the storytime hour, I would, probably, agree

Do they also do interviews?

 

[Greg K]

Do they also do interviews?

I don't know. Ask Rel, and I'm a Banana if they do interviews.

As for my players,three of my players interviewed me as I interviewed them (the process is not one way). One of them tested me to see what he could get away with. When he saw that I stuck to my guns, he actually thanked me. He had no respect for his current DM as a DM.

And for my players and the Gygax comment, that was a joke (although there are several things Gygax espoused at times over the years for which they don't care). However, for my players can state the following:

Two of my other players are from a prior campaign that lasted four or five years. A third player from that campaign is coming back. We had two other players in that campaign that, eventually, moved (one to the east coast after getting married). These two players were good DMs (one DM'd around the country while travelling as military brat). However, every time either one of the two tried to give me a temporary break, I would get calls within one or two sessions from the other players asking me when I would be ready to resume (The two DMs and one of the guys from the prior campaign were in a prior four year campaign that I ran previosuly). All of these players from this prior campaign have had years playing with several DMs (three of them while stationed in various states and countries while in the military). They all have told me that I am the best DM they have had. I am grateful for that. I have tried to learn from some of the best GMs that I have had, from one of the worst (a screenwriter and video game writer with whom four of us had LARPed).

However, I have no delusions that I am the greatest DM nor even a good DM for everyone (the latter, because there are too many playstyles and influences). Yet, if I were not a good DM (at least for the players whom I have had), they have/had choices for other GMs from within the group plus the Los Angeles area at large. L.A. has a very large gaming community. I also would not have prior players asking to sit in when they are in town. Nor, would I have other players and DMs asking me to sit in if I have an open seat, because they have heard good things from my players and/or played in LARPs that I ran back/co-ran in the early 2000s.

 

[Shasarak]

I don't know. Ask Rel and I'm a Banana if they do interviews.

As for my players,three of my players interviewed me as I interviewed them (the process is not one way). One of them tested me to see what he could get away with. When he saw that I stuck to my guns, he actually thanked me. He had no respect for his current DM as a DM.

And for my players and the Gygax comment, that was a joke (although there are several things Gygax espoused at times over the years for which they don't care). However, for my players can state the following:

Two of my other players are from a prior campaign that lasted four or five years. A third player from that campaign is coming back. We had two other players in that campaign that, eventually, moved (one to the east coast after getting married). These two players were good DMs (one DM'd around the country while travelling as military brat). However, every time either one of the two tried to give me a temporary break, I would get calls within one or two sessions from the other players asking me when I would be ready to resume (The two DMs and one of the guys from the prior campaign were in a prior four year campaign that I ran previosuly). All of these players from this prior campaign have had years playing with several DMs (three of them while stationed in various states and countries while in the military). They all have told me that I am the best DM they have had. I am grateful for that. I have tried to learn from some of the best GMs that I have had, from one of the worst (a screenwriter and video game writer with whom four of us had LARPed).

However, I have no delusions that I am the greatest DM nor even a good DM for everyone (the latter, because there are too many playstyles and influences). Yet, if I were not a good DM (at least for the players whom I have had), they have/had choices for other GMs from within the group plus the Los Angeles area at large. L.A. has a very large gaming community. I also would not have prior players asking to sit in when they are in town. Nor, would I have other players and DMs asking me to sit in if I have an open seat, because they have heard good things from my players and/or played in LARPs that I ran back/co-ran in the early 2000s.

I am sure you are very Popular and on the other hand if you are not going to work with me, if you are going to get red in the face if I want to play a Dragonborn or Warforged, if Psionics and Monks do not fit in your "European" fantasy (and frankly "European" fantasy is a big red warning sign right there) then that is all I really need to know.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I dislike sorcerer in this edition. Of a pc wants to play one I will just warn them I don't like them, and why...it's up to them if they play one.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It is more "I feel like putting work into and spending time playing this game. Who wants to play in it? Alice, Bob are in, great!. Cheryl isn't? OK, let me know if you change your mind and I'll let you know when there are other options. I'll call Dave, Elizabeth and Fred to see if they're interested."

I don't get a stronger vote; I get to pick what I want to spend my time on and each and every player gets to pick what he wants to spend his time on. Hopefully, he wants to spend his time playing the same game I am going to run. If not, it is no biggie, we'll get together at other times for other things. If a player really wants to use a character I'm not willing to run in the current situation then I'm sure he can find a game where that character will fit swimmingly. Or he can run something and I'll look to see if I want to play in his campaign. It is not like I am uniquely qualified to operate the GM screen; there are other GMs. Don't like my campaign constraints? Free the player slot for someone who does.

Sure, I see where you are coming from... it's just that I'm the type that would rather choose a game that Alice, Bob, Cheryl, Dave, Elizabeth, and Fred (and of course myself) are all interested in if that is at all possible.

I know sometimes that isn't the case. For example I have a player in my group that just isn't at all interested in the World of Darkness. So the one day of the week that he is available to join in on a game, I choose to run something besides any of the various World of Darkness games that I and the rest of the players in the group enjoy - like D&D, Shadowrun, or Exalted because we all enjoy those.

No matter how interested I am in a particular story idea I have for a World of Darkness game, I'm just not going to say "I'm running that on Friday nights" when I can instead say "I'm going to run it on some other night that those of us who are interested can join in, even if I have to wait for our schedules to sync up better - so we can spend Friday night playing something with the whole group."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I would still argue it generally takes more time and more effort to be a DM than to be a player

I would agree that a typical DM has put in more time and/or more effort than a typical player. Any specific absolute is impossible to be certain of, in this case, because of how many variables there are in how a person can learn to play and/or DM.

it is certainly conceivable that somebody can DM with little to no effort, though I personally think that would not make for a very interesting game.

I'd say don't knock it until you've tried it - when I first started telling my group that I hadn't pre-planned, prepped, or even really thought about the campaign we were playing outside of session time, they didn't believe me because it was just as, if not more, engaging, interesting, and detailed than the campaigns I'd run for them prior.

I have a tendency to discuss topics using extremes in the attempt to find a reasonable compromise. Basically, if you hit the walls enough, you'll eventually find the middle of the room.

Yeah, that works. I'm just more the type to aim for the target directly rather than hope a bank shot gets me there.

Potential players should appreciate and respect that fact by either trying to work with the campaign setting offered or finding an acceptable alternative (different campaign, different DM, or different group).

That is the thing, though, a player suggesting a a character that the DM doesn't immediately recognize as "in setting" might not be intending to work against the campaign by doing so.

What I find unacceptable are the implication that people are somehow playing the game wrong if everyone involved is having fun and the expectation that either DMs or players are obligated in any way to participate in a game that they do not find fun.

I'm never implying that someone should play in a game they do not find fun.

I am, however, implying that when there is a choice between A) play a game that everyone available to play in can enjoy, or B) play a game that some of the available players will enjoy more than game A, but others that are available will not play in at all, choosing B is selfish.

Not that I am saying no one should ever be selfish. It's fine to be selfish sometimes, in fact I encourage it - I just don't think pretending that you aren't being selfish helps anything.

And, again, I understand that not all groups are in a situation to actually have the choice I describe - and not one of my comments applies to them as a result.

 

[Greg K]

I am sure you are very Popular and on the other hand if you are not going to work with me, if you are going to get red in the face if I want to play a Dragonborn or Warforged, if Psionics and Monks do not fit in your "European" fantasy (and frankly "European" fantasy is a big red warning sign right there) then that is all I really need to know.

No worries. I like my "European" fantasy. Then again, my next fantasy campaign will be heavily asian (I am just not sure that it will be with D&D). On the other hand, Spelljammer, Eberron, or Planescape are my dealbreakers as a player as are settings where anything goes or one just having Dragonborn, drow, or vampire/dhampyr, PCs (elves that look like drow are fine).