Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2583936" data-attributes="member: 18280">Absolutely.  Is there any doubt?Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.This is not "an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them".  It is certainly not a plea "that they should agree to play by his rules."  Your friends do not have an obligation to entertain you. Nor do you have an obligation to entertain your friends. If a game isn't fun, don't play it. Go camping or something instead.Playing D&D is not the be-all end-all of existence, it is not the only thing you can do for fun, and it is not the only entertainment out there.Players should play in a game only if they are having fun.  The DM, like the baker in my example, is involved in a form of commerce.  I entertain you, and in turn you entertain me.  What the DM is offering is up to the DM.  What the DM accepts in return as entertainment is also up to the DM.  This is no different than, say, setting a price to sell a bicycle.  The DM can also (and is likely to) auction off the bicycle for the price that is closest to what he is looking for.Players likewise are involved in commerce for the entertainment they provide.  They say, in effect, "I will play in your game provided it is a game that gives me at a certain degree of satisfaction."  If they are not satisfied, they do not have to play.  In fact, if they are not satisfied, they should not play, even if there is no other game in town.In the old days, DMs were rare.  Nowadays, 3.X has made it a lot easier to be at least a passable DM.  There are lots of options out there.  There was never a reason that someone should be playing in a D&D game that they don't enjoy.  Today, it is easier than ever to make a game that you will enjoy if you cannot otherwise find one.I also DM because I enjoy it.  And I agree that if you don't want the extra work, then you shouldn't DM.  However, I disagree with your contention that cookie example is flawed, and to that degree the disproportionate amount of work is an entirely valid observation.  The DM does invite other people to join him.  He undertakes that work because he wants to, not because he is obligated to.  Gameplay is a "shared experience"; game preperation is not.  In this sense, RPGS are  more than simply cooperative games.  This is a simple statement of objective fact.Because something is enjoyable, and a hobby, does not mean that there is less work involved. The term "work" does not mean simply "unpleasant work".  I even went out of my way to clarify that again.Call it a "shared world" if you will, but if the group breaks up, who has all the notes and maps of that "shared" world?My position is, I think, pretty consistent:1)  The DM is entitled to unlimited authority because they DM (within the context of the game).2)  If a player is unwilling to accept the conditions of a particular game, he is under no obligation to play.  A player can quit a game at any time if the DM abuses his authority in that player's eyes.  A DM is entitled to authority, but is not automatically entitled to players.3)  Making the game fun is everyone's responsibility, and as the players gain more power to determine what is likely in 3.X, they also gain more responsibility to make it fun for all involved, including the DM. Get up or game on. Don't waste everyone's time whining at the table.If I have varied from this position anywhere, please let me know!Again, you said it yourself.  You DM because you want to.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that, when you allow player input, you do this because you want to as well.  And, when you say "no" to a player, you do this because you want to.When your players play in your game, they do so because they want to.The idea that either players or DM is somehow obligated to the other is abhorrent.  As in "Jeez this game sucks, but I guess I gotta go or Jim won't be my friend any more."  Or just as bad, "Guess I gotta let him play an elf or Jim won't be my friend."  I imagine that nothing like this ever happens in your group, Third Wizard, nor should it ever.In short,If you are not having fun, do not play.(But don't imagine that your choosing to play obligates the DM to do things your way.)RC</blockquote>

Verification