3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Nighthawk]

I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead.

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.

If there was a consistent behavior across the board for how people interact with their friends, I could see your point. IME, different people treat their friends in different ways, especially with regards to expectations. Many people are willing to do things for friends that they would not do for non-friends.

I am not saying this is true of everyone. It has been something I have noted over the years, and it applies to non-gaming friends as well.

I would also add that there are many people who game who are not friends, thus the dynamic.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead.

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.

Good thread, interesting responses....some of which I agree with and some I do not. I think, for me, it boils down to what fusangite said above. I run games that are to my personal taste because what is required of me is a great deal of time and energy. I only set up campaigns that capture my imagination because this is my HOBBY, I am not under contract with my players, I am not getting paid to put in countless hours running something that I personally find a bore. It isn't just an issue of me not liking a certain type of game, but if my heart isn't in it, I will not be a good DM and I will burn out and I will eventually quit to run something else anyway.

If I was a professional ie. paid DM or in other words a designer with certain projects and deadlines I would create and run what you want when you want it, because you have paid me to do so.

This is where the final power of the DM comes into play...the power to run or not run a game. That is the final power and the greatest power. No matter what RAW says, I don't have to run a game I find to be an unenjoyable waste of my limited time. Do players have the power not to play....well yes of course, but the fact remains that good DMs are rather rare and it takes years to become one. Being a player is far, far easier and there are many more good players than good DMs...mediocre players can be coached into being good ones by a good DM. Good DMs are rarely, if ever coached by players into anything. Some of us don't even loike being advised by other DMs.

So what it bols down to is this. I am a good DM, I create good settings, good plots, believable situations and exciting adventures with memorable NPC and monsters. My players know this to be true. I choose to run the game the manner in which I get to run it period. I take feedback from the players and if possible incorporate good ideas into the game while ignoring what doesn't fit. My players know that this has been the way it has been for 15yrs and it isn't about to change.

If my players what to run a long term evil-aligned campaign they can find another DM. I have tried it and hate running it. If they want to have half-dragon, ninja incantatrix paladins or some other crap in the Dragonlance setting or my own homebrew they can forget it, pick a different character concept. If they want a game where most of there time is spent wandering in dungeons filled with crap that doesn't make any sense, find another DM. You get my meaning. I could just as easily go to a local club and meet a lady to spend some time with as opposed to play a hobby where my job is to serve the whims of my players and I am no longer enjoying myself.

If my players want a campaign that has a strong sense of story, lots of role-playing, good challenging battles, memorable lands and people and tons of internal consistancy and believability (within a fantasy millieu), come and play my game with me. You will have a great time. Within the parmeters of my DMing style and the setting, I guarantee you a good time. If you aren't having a good time I will do anything that does not violate the integrity of my campaign to make sure you have the best time possible.


Chris

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do players have the power not to play....well yes of course, but the fact remains that good DMs are rather rare and it takes years to become one....Being a player is far, far easier and there are many more good players than good DMs...mediocre players can be coached into being good ones by a good DM. Good DMs are rarely, if ever coached by players into anything. Some of us don't even loike being advised by other DMs.

IMAO, this isn't true. If you DM because you have fun doing it (and I'd encourage those not having fun to stop. ), then it doesn't matter how much work or not work you put into your campaign, as long as it's fun. You can spend hours a day working up complex mechanisms, or you can think about it for thirty seconds at the game table and as long as eveyrone keeps enjoying themselves, it doesn't matter. Furthermore, working that extra bit doesn't give the DM any special right to inflict his desires on everyone regardless of what they desire. Working that extra bit is a choice, not a chore, and so I don't think that choosing to do something that I have fun doing entitles me to be able to rank my fun as higher than anyone else's.

Good DM's need good players to be good DM's. The best DM in the world won't run a good game if it's filled with selfish players. The best group of players in the world may suffer under a selfish DM (and then stop involving themselves in the hobby at all because of it).

Good DM's also need advice, flexibility, and natural leadership qualities, but that's not really here or there.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Furthermore, working that extra bit doesn't give the DM any special right to inflict his desires on everyone regardless of what they desire. Working that extra bit is a choice, not a chore, and so I don't think that choosing to do something that I have fun doing entitles me to be able to rank my fun as higher than anyone else's.

Good DM's need good players to be good DM's. The best DM in the world won't run a good game if it's filled with selfish players. The best group of players in the world may suffer under a selfish DM (and then stop involving themselves in the hobby at all because of it).

Good DM's also need advice, flexibility, and natural leadership qualities, but that's not really here or there.

Well, I think every player has an inner-DM and if a player believes I am inflicing something I him when I am merely a stickler for certain things within the games I run, then he is free to either discover that part of himself and run a game any way he wants or find another DM. You can't inflict anything on anyone that is willingly where they are. If after the first time you don't like it because your expectations are outside the scope of a given millieu, change gamemasters or DM yourself.

The last paragraph of my post indicates my style of DMing and that isn't going to change. If that is "inflicting" something on someone then they need to get a life where they learn what real challenges are and save the victimization words for a more legitimate set of circumstances.

My fun isn't ranked higher than anyone else's but I guarantee that if I am not having fun there is NO game to be played. The players understand that my campaigns are, within their own parameters, the way they are and certain expectations are a given. If the DM is asked to run a game he doesn't enjoy there is no campaign at all period. I have yet to meet players who thought that I didn't have the right to run the type of games I wish to run. With that power comes the responsibility for their enjoyment which I take seriously but there are types of games that I will not run just like there are game systems I am uninterested in.


Chris

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The DMs I play with have no trouble drawing the line.

In my gaming group, we as players do not make any assumptions about any materials outside the Core books. It is understood that the DM needs time to look over other materials before allowing it into their campaign.

 

[fusangite]

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.

-or- this means that your freinds gaming background is different than yours

No... the majority of my RPG-playing friends have a different gaming background than I do and don't especially like my style. That's why I game with a minority of my RPG-playing friends. By the same token, some of the people who play in my game don't normally enjoy RPGs but joined because of the unique style of the game. I have a good-sized, diverse group of friends; many of them have a different gaming background than I do. But I solve this problem not by changing my GMing style but by having more friends and gaming with different friends.

-or- this means your freinds dont play DnD and you game at a store, trying to find some freinds that play..

If you need to game at a store, you need more friends.

-or- ... the list goes on. Its not like my entire world revolves around roleplaying.

Neither does mine. If it did, I would have fewer friends and I would not have met/been able to recruit the English literature doctoral candidate or the magazine typesetter who are now two of the most important members of my group.

gee. perhaps this assumption of the extreme could be a bit offensive and not really needed here?

People are describing a social problem and, in typical ENWorld style, trying to come up with in-game solutions for it. If you have a group of people who are insufficiently compatible with your GMing style, there is nothing you can do to solve the problem other than make more friends.

If there was a consistent behavior across the board for how people interact with their friends, I could see your point. IME, different people treat their friends in different ways, especially with regards to expectations. Many people are willing to do things for friends that they would not do for non-friends.

Not to sound like a Savage Love column but isn't it easier to find people with genuinely compatible tastes than to have a relationship based on putting up with things you're not really into for the good of the relationship?

I would also add that there are many people who game who are not friends, thus the dynamic.

These people need more friends.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

If you need to game at a store, you need more friends.

Generalizations of extremes.. and still offensive.

I played at a game store in So. Cal for 5 years.. because my freinds tended to hang out in the area and it was a convienant place to meet at. Met lots of peolpe I would not normally have met and stay in touch with most of them even tho a decade has passed since I left the area.

Anyway.. back to the thread topic:

Fun, Power, entitlement, .. etc.. Its a game.

If you enjoy the game, then participate.
If you participate, and its not a solo adventure, understand that you will not have the limelight and the group may not go in the direction you desire.
When this happens, play nice.. be freindly..and enjoy participating when someone else has the spotlight. Don't be selfish.

And that is mainly what it boils down to. DMs and players who are being selfish. I have played/run in many games where it wasn't quite what I wanted.. kinda like everyone headed out to a movie together.

A short example: a Star Wars game where my character became the 'acquisitions expert' and was often off on side treks doing 'business' for the group. Since the DM didn't hand-wave the time.. this meant I was often wandering into the next room and reading/play Magic the Gathering until my character returned from whatever errand he had gone on. Missed alot of play time that way... but became known for returning at the crucial moment with just the right equipment. Had I chosen to pursue a more prominent role in that group of 8 to 13 players....? Who knows. Often times my characters return was pivotal in keeping the group alive and uncaptured...mostly

Sometimes the needs of the many take precedence over the needs of the few


That being said.. when I run a game, it will tend to be dangerous and have a depth of plotlines.. some of which become tangled webs of deceits and subterfuge. It doesn't matter what rules I am using, nor does it matter what cool ablities the characters have acquired. The obvous BBEG may not actually be...he could be good, misguided, or a puppet for a bigger BBEG.
Regardless.. the adventure will be challenging and.. hopefuly, enjoyable.

YMMV

 

[The Lost Muse]

To avoid any questioning of sources outside of the books I have, I make a pdf with all the classes/feats/prestige classes allowed ahead of time. If people want other feats I consider them. THank goodness for the open game licence.

Edit: Because the pdf is available for download from my website and I don't want to be sued.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*whew* For a while there I was thinking you didn't think the DM should compromise. I was, gladly, mistaken. My bad.

I am saying that the DM is not obligated to compromise. The DM can make any campaign setting he likes, with the intent to run it in any way that he likes.

The players are not obligated to compromise. The players can create any type of characters they like, with the intent to play them in any way that they like.

However, the DM may wish to compromise if he is trying to create a game for a particular group of players. Likewise, the players may wish to compromise if they want to play in the campaign world of any particular DM.

Neither side is obligated to the other. Neither side serves the other.

The degree of compromise is largely an artifact of intergroup dynamic. Certainly the degree of investment any individual has to a particular idea is going to affect how much they are willing to compromise. This is actually one of the reasons that tournament modules come with pregenerated characters.

If the DM discusses campaign set-up with the players prior to starting work, then he is more likely to compromise on larger issues because he has not yet made any huge investment of time or effort. Similarly, the baker could ask you what type of cookies you want before he starts baking.

Others invest more heavily in their campaign worlds, using them for multiple groups, multiple stories, and multiple characters. If you asked WotC politely to make major changes to Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, I doubt they would be willing to do so. They have too much invested in the setting.

Most DMs fall somewhere between those two extremes. That said, it should be remembered that both the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk began their lives as someone's homebrew campaign world.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

They want to play D&D. I'm not going to force them to accept my way or the highway when it's not nessecary. My game isn't sacred and unchangable; they can tell me what they want and I'll do what I can (what we can all still have fun playing) to accomodate them.

Which is great, if that is what you want to do.

It has nothing to do with sacredness, it has to do with investment. I do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because I enjoy it. I want to share my work because I enjoy that, too. I want to share my work particularly with people who will enjoy the work that I have done, who will add to it and build on it rather than attempting to tear it apart.

Because of this, I can and will say "No". I can and will say "My game, my rules." I don't mean that all of D&D is my game; I mean my campaign is my game.

The thing is, my contention that you have the right to say "No" does not mean that you have an obligation to say "No". My contention allows us both to play our games in our styles. We both get to have fun.

Conversely, your contention that the DM can only say "No" when the players let him is not only obviously untrue (You can vote with your feet, but you can't force me to let you play a warforged samurai with the Hand of Vecna), but it also says, in essence, that my saying "No" to protect the intergrety of my investment is wrong. In other words, it is wrong of me to create something that I enjoy and then seek to share it with others who will also enjoy it rather than find out what a particular group would enjoy and then bend all of my efforts to that end.

Under that arrangement, you get to have fun and I don't.

Politely, I suggest that mine is the superior contention.


RC