DM refuses to switch; players want to

[billd91]

And personally folks I don't buy this whole "the DM puts in the most work and therefore he gets the biggest say" argument. I know a bunch of greybeards sitting alone in their homes wondering why everyone quit their game because of this attitude. This "the DM is God" argument is so stereotypical Hackmaster made a whole line of product around it.

I can see however by the number of posts that I'm on the other side of the point here. Perhaps I'm more easily entertained, or more easygoing. I'm also not involved in the ideological war of 4 vs 3. I have to say that in over 25 years of playing and running RPGs I've rarely come across a game I would not run if I was asked. Would I play 3e? Never in a thousand years. Would I run it if asked? I sure as hell would.

I can agree that some compromises are necessary, but with the GM putting in the lion's share of the work, he'd better be reasonably fond of the game he's working with. That's why the GM has to have the most say in the game he's going to run. It's simply not fair to push the DM into running something that he detests simply because everyone else wants to play it. One of them should take on the responsibility of running it and doing the work.

 

[Voadam]

Would I play 3e? Never in a thousand years. Would I run it if asked? I sure as hell would.

Wait, what?

if I have 3 folks who want to go in one direction and I want to in another, I will bow to the will of the majority. I work with players so that everybody has a good time. I don't selfishly say "this isn't 100% what I want so everybody has to suffer now."

Most times in life you have to compromise. Role playing games really aren't the best example of this since many people just Kobayashi Maru it and change the rules of the game to suit them. I have not really had that luxury.

3 others "William we want you to run a 3e game for us."

William "I'm not going to selifishly say this isn't 100% what I want so everybody has to suffer now. I'll run it."

but

3 others "William we want you to play in our 3e game with us."

William "Never."

Is it that you are fine walking away from playing in a game you don't like because they can still play without you but if they ask you to DM then they can't play without you?

 

[Storm Raven]

In my experience the number of people willing to play is small, the number willing to run even smaller. This puts a responsibility on those willing to run games.

And personally folks I don't buy this whole "the DM puts in the most work and therefore he gets the biggest say" argument.

I think you just contradicted yourself here. If a group of players wants to play a different game, but none of them are willing to step up and GM, then I have no sympathy for them if the GM they are looking to says "I don't want to run that game system".

GMing is work. It is a labor of love for most GMs, and they do it because they enjoy it. But it is work. If you, as a player, aren't willing to step up to the plate and GM a system you want to play that the current Gm doesn't want to run, then it isn't the current GM who is selfish. It is you, and the other players.

I know a bunch of greybeards sitting alone in their homes wondering why everyone quit their game because of this attitude. This "the DM is God" argument is so stereotypical Hackmaster made a whole line of product around it.

A vanishingly small number probably. Most GMs, in my experience, have no trouble recruiting players for games, because, as you said, the number of people willing to GM is relatively small.

 

[hexgrid]

Most GMs, in my experience, have no trouble recruiting players for games, because, as you said, the number of people willing to GM is relatively small.

I don't know- I think good, dedicated players are hard to come by. I value the players I have, and have rarely had good experiences recruiting new ones. So I give my players a lot of say in what and how we play.

That said, I still get the biggest say.

 

[Mallus]

(fighters, in his opinion, now cast spells), and wants nothing to do with it.

Your group never got around to the Book of Nine Swords, eh? Anyway...

I was wondering if anyone had any experience with transitional strife in their group, and how they handled it.

Nope. Knock on mithral, but my group is currently strife-free, edition-wise. Here's how we would settle a local outbreak of Edition War though:

1) If all my players wanted me to run a new system and I absolutely refused (not a likely scenario, BTW), one of them would run it.

2) If they then invited me to play and I didn't care to, I'd wish them well. No hard feelings.

3) Profit!

Re: the 'Importance of Being DM' thing... I've running the same campaign for four years now, and I can't stress the value of good players enough. My pet setting and the long, strange trip through it would not have been possible without them. Good DM's might be rare, but so are good players. And sure, I do a lot of work maintaining the campaign, but I do it because at some basic level, I want to entertain a live audience.

If that weren't the case, I'd simply write a novel or, perhaps a huge crazy person's encyclopedia of a made-up world that someone would posthumously publish as outsider art (note to self: learn collage techniques).

 

[Wormwood]

Most GMs, in my experience, have no trouble recruiting players for games, because, as you said, the number of people willing to GM is relatively small.

Of our core group of seven, *five* of us wanted to run 4e.

In fifteen years together, that's unprecendented.

I only mention this because I really, really hope it's the shape of things to come. But then again, I've recently become an optimist.

 

[sjmiller]

You know, I have to say that I am on the DMs side here. If he doesn't like the game, and doesn't want to run the game, then he shouldn't have to. After all, he's running the game because it is fun for him to do it. If it is not fun, and it is a game, then what's the point? If the current players are so set on playing 4e then one of them should step up and offer to run the game. Who knows, maybe the current DM will like the game once he has played it a few times. Maybe the new DM will really like running the game and will offer to do it more. Maybe, just maybe, your group can have two different DMs running two different games.

If my players decided they wanted to play Hero System or Palladium, then I would have to tell them that I was not interested in running it. Could I run them? Sure, I could. Would I enjoy running them? No, not really. So if I do not enjoy running a game I will not put my best efforts into it, and the game would suffer. So, in that case, as in yours, nobody would be the winner.

So, step up to bat! Offer to run a game. It can't hurt.

 

[Vanuslux]

I just love the sense of entitlement some people have.

 

[dmchucky]

Wow

Wow. There are some pretty harsh opinions here. Let me add some harsh comments the other way.

The DM is the god of his domain. He does all the heavy lifting. Thus he decides what system the group uses. Period. End of discussion. It's that simple. I won't ever use the 4th Edition rules. My players know this. They would never ask me to. They trust me to use the system that I am comfortable with.

If the majority of my group wanted to change systems, I'd wish them well and move on. There are always more players out there. The onus of change always falls on the DM. He's the one that purchases and reads the lion's share of books. He has to know and be comfortable with the rules inside and out. It's just WRONG to expect the guy to kowtow to the wants of the group. WRONG, I tell you.

And what if they wanted me to try out 4th Ed as a player? No thanks. I've found the system I want to use from here on out. I will try to surround myself with players who feel the way I do (and have done so to this day). I'm not worried about friendships. It's a game; the friendships will continue if they are meant to.

Does this mean I am selfish? Who cares? It's MY game. I'll run it the way I want to.

Sounds like some DM's need to whip their players into line!

 

[carmachu]

There's another factor here.

The group had been talking about this for months, and this is the first time the DM comments on it? And rather than talking it out or negotiating any aspect of the system and situation he apparently just attempts to shut down his part of the conversation.

I have the feeling there is more going on here than we know or the OP may be aware of, for me and my groups this would be a clear sign that this guy needs to not DM anymore, at least for a while, regardless of what system you end up playing.

Has he seemed burned out otherwise?

\

Could be burn out. Could be that you never actually asked and assumed. Could be he was on the fence and didnt like what he sees now....