Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4806522" data-attributes="member: 44797">I think your example about dinner can go either way.&nbsp; If the DM serves steak after inviting his friends to a vegan dinner, then he's a big jerk.&nbsp; But if the DM serves vegan after inviting his friends to a vegan dinner, he's not a jerk when the players complain about the lack of meat.If your goal is to &quot;game with friends&quot; then that can be satisfied in many ways, combat gaming or otherwise.&nbsp; But some, who might invest tons of hours into creating game worlds, may have goals more like, &quot;game with nice people who can enjoy this thing I spent 80 hours creating.&quot;&nbsp; If a bunch of people join the game and then say &quot;we'd prefer otherwise, so run something else,&quot; is the DM compelled to?&nbsp; Judging by how vehemently you disagreed with Raven Crowking, I'm kinda thinking you would say yes, the DM should indeed abandon his work and do whatever else the players prefer.&nbsp; I kinda hope you clarify otherwise, though.To me, the best thing in such a case is for both the DM &amp; players to split.&nbsp; The DM finds other players who appreciate his work, and the players find a DM who likes what they like.&nbsp; I feel weird for saying that, as if I'm a pariah or something.&nbsp; But I still feel it anyway.Real world, I advertised <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/gamers-seeking-gamers/242309-san-jose-ca-d-d-3-5-greyhawk-game-5-sessions.html" target="_blank">this game</a> and got a player who complained about nearly every house rule, even though I said right up front that I would be testing house rules.&nbsp; My response to the player?&nbsp; &quot;The house rules stay.&quot;Am I a jerk?&nbsp; Am I supposed to drop one of my stated goals because a player -- who knew about it before ever joining -- tells me he prefers otherwise?It will be interesting to get a handle on how far others take this notion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4806522, member: 44797"] I think your example about dinner can go either way. If the DM serves steak after inviting his friends to a vegan dinner, then he's a big jerk. But if the DM serves vegan after inviting his friends to a vegan dinner, he's [i]not[/i] a jerk when the players complain about the lack of meat. If your goal is to "game with friends" then that can be satisfied in many ways, combat gaming or otherwise. But some, who might invest tons of hours into creating game worlds, may have goals more like, "game with nice people who can enjoy this thing I spent 80 hours creating." If a bunch of people join the game and then say "we'd prefer otherwise, so run something else," is the DM compelled to? Judging by how vehemently you disagreed with Raven Crowking, I'm kinda thinking you would say yes, the DM should indeed abandon his work and do whatever else the players prefer. I kinda hope you clarify otherwise, though. To me, the best thing in such a case is for both the DM & players to split. The DM finds other players who appreciate his work, and the players find a DM who likes what they like. I feel weird for saying that, as if I'm a pariah or something. But I still feel it anyway. Real world, I advertised [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/gamers-seeking-gamers/242309-san-jose-ca-d-d-3-5-greyhawk-game-5-sessions.html]this game[/url] and got a player who complained about nearly every house rule, even though I said right up front that I would be testing house rules. My response to the player? "The house rules stay." Am I a jerk? Am I supposed to drop one of my stated goals because a player -- who knew about it before ever joining -- tells me he prefers otherwise? It will be interesting to get a handle on how far others take this notion. [/QUOTE]

Verification