DM Entitlement...

[Hussar]

Maybe that's also a big difference. I've never, ever played in a game where only one person was the DM. Every group I've ever played with has included at least one other DM, and quite often the entire group DM'd at some point.

My current group, as a standard example, has 6 players (including myself). Of those 6, I believe that only 1 has never DM'd and all 5 of us who have DM'd are concurrently playing and DM'ing in various other games. I'd actually say, for the first time in years, I have been a player only for the past year and that's has been a rare thing for me.

So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table. We're all DM's. Every group I play with is full of DM's. If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.

I DM because I like to, because I enjoy it. Because I have particular stories I'd like to tell with the cooperation of the group. Heck, when I gave up the DMing spot in my regular group, I wound up not getting it back until much, much later than I had originally intended because the other DM wanted to finish up his campaign.

I really wonder about DM's out there who feel some sort of obligation to run a game and then figure that that obligation somehow entitles them to special treatment. If I said, "No, you absolutely can't have that. You don't like it? Get out.", that would be the last session I had with most of my groups. I'd be giving up the good seat the next session.

That's how I view DMing - the good seat. I cannot fathom DMing for any other reason.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In my main group of 10+, fully half of them have run at least a short campaign in the past decade.

Its still "My way or the Highway"- play by the campaign HRs or run your own game.

As an example, we recently wrapped up going through RttToEE, and we were trying to decide who was going to run the next game.

I still haven't completed designing my aforementioned homebrew that won't have any PHB race except Humans...and I just recieved an email from one of the other guys in the group offering to run his homebrew... It reads (in part):

"The only source books we will be
using are the PHB, the Complete Adventurer, the Complete Arcane , the Complete Divine, and the Complete Warrior. The only class from those book I'm allowing is the Favored Soul. We will not use any prestige classes also. "

He's one of the more conservative types. I'll probably make one suggestion to him- that we use the Reserve Feats from Complete Mage. I think they're right up there with French Toast. (IOW, just slightly below sliced bread, and miles above a kick to my happy place.)

At least one other guy in the group besides me and the guy above has publicly contemplated running a game as well. Based on his track record, I fully expect him to excise Paladins and Psionics as well as some other things.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Maybe that's also a big difference. I've never, ever played in a game where only one person was the DM. Every group I've ever played with has included at least one other DM, and quite often the entire group DM'd at some point.

My current group, as a standard example, has 6 players (including myself). Of those 6, I believe that only 1 has never DM'd and all 5 of us who have DM'd are concurrently playing and DM'ing in various other games. I'd actually say, for the first time in years, I have been a player only for the past year and that's has been a rare thing for me.

So, for me to come down with the "Well, I'm the DM, so play my way or the highway" would get me laughed off the table. We're all DM's. Every group I play with is full of DM's. If I pulled this sort of authoritative stuff on my guys, I'd never get to DM at all.

That sort of 'authoritative stuff' (though personally, I think communication is key here, as in many things, and the way things are expressed matters a lot) is the default, but I'm otherwise in the same situation - most gamers I know (and have known) are DM/players, myself included.

It's just seen as one of the DM's primary responsibilities, deciding details for the campaign setting, such as (for example) available PC races, and so on.

And it's never been the case, over the course of quite a few years, with many DMs in several groups, that that's caused any negative issues. Everyone understands and accepts these particular [versions of the] roles of DM and player, as being distinct from one another in certain ways.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For me it's not the act of saying: "I don't want X because I don't like it" that is problematic.

It's the idea of: "If you don't like it you can leave." that I have an issue with.

Interestingly enough, without that second statement (implied or otherwise), the first has little weight.

In a perfect world, when the DM says "I don't want X because I don't like it," the players say, "OK", and that is the end of it. However, people seldom find themselves in a perfect world, and often one has to make a decision between having the thing one doesn't like (or not having the thing one does like), and playing in a given game.

If, in a given group, four people love X and won't play a game without it, and three people hate X and won't play a game with it, there is simply no way that those seven people are going to sit down and have a game they enjoy. If X is included, the X-haters will drag the game down because they are not having fun. If X is not included, the X-lovers will similarly drag the game down because they are not having fun. The best thing they can do is split into two gaming groups and save their "friendship time" for activities they all enjoy together.

(And, for the record, while I would play in a game with dragonborn, I would never run a game with dragonborn....unless it were a game I didn't expect to "matter", like when I opened the floodgates in the WLD. In that game, I had a PC who was an animated LEGO man. Would you normally allow such a character in your game? If not, why not?)

If you don't run games with elves, or psionics, or what-have-you, I would respect that, and expect that any other players at the table respect that. Sometimes there is wiggle room; sometimes there is not. And that's okay.



RC

 

[Wyrmshadows]

In 23yrs of DMing I have only had to ask one person to leave my table because of outright, in your face, "I'm not playing by your rules", insubordination (for lack of a better word) though I recall not asking a few to return because my style and their styles were not compatible.

For the most part "Play by my rules or leave the table" works well on those rare occasions it needs to be invoked. IME most players seem to come to the table with that understanding already in place....thank god.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Steely Dan]

If you don't run games with elves, or psionics, or what-have-you, I would respect that, and expect that any other players at the table respect that.

Apparently not, I'm seeing a lot of player pleasing/entitlement 3rd Ed rubbish on this thread – wah wah, you should accommodate anything I want!

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Apparently not, I'm seeing a lot of player pleasing/entitlement 3rd Ed rubbish on this thread – wah wah, you should accommodate anything I want!

Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon. I have been seeing less and less of this attitude probably because it was yanked from WoTC's Meme Life Support System.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Steely Dan]

Definately a 3e meme and one that hopefully dies a terribly painful though blessedly rapid death soon.

From your mouth to you-know-whose ears.

Maybe 1st and 2nd Ed gave the DM a bit too much control, but 3rd took too much away, and had a bit of a player pleasing/DMs go screw yourselves vibe, sometimes, IMO.

 

[Fenes]

I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong - but I take offense at the statement that a player's fun is worth more than a DM's fun. Both have the same rights. Claiming that since the DM has so much more work to cover, handling all NPCs and areas, he has somehow less rights to veto stuff and should just shut up and DM what the players want, even if he hates it, is wrong. And expecting a DM to simply run the game the players want, even if it not fun for himself, is not just wrong but arrogant to boot.

Players should be pleased and catered to, but not at the expense of the DM.

 

[Steely Dan]

I don't think the idea that players should be accomodated and pleased is wrong

Absolutely, no one likes a control-freak DM, but that is a big difference to a DM who simply does not have hobbits in his particular campaign world – tough noogies.

I may let you use the mechanics to play a "little person", but the fluff is gone.