D&D General DM with too High Expectations - Advice?

[Eltab]

Definitely time to talk to the other players one-on-one. Set up a new meeting time (not on top of the old group's time, for politeness' sake) and ask for a volunteer to DM a one-shot. If no volunteers, be the DM yourself. The group can go on even without Streaming DM in it.

 

[FrogReaver]

The Shocking Conclusion?...

So they had their meeting last night. After my wife and one other player said they don't want an overly intense game, the DM said, "Sorry that's all I will run." And then without any more debate said that their D&D game time will now be online versions of Uno or Clue. My wife felt terrible about voicing her opinions and taking away the option of playing D&D. I tried to reassure her that it wasn't her fault for standing up for herself - and it is solely on the DM for taking away their options and not having discussions.
What a jerk.

If he doesn't want to run something other than an intense game and the players don't want to play in an intense game then I'm not really sure what else he should have been done?

*He may very well have been a jerk about how he went about things. It's hard to tell from a few lines of text. But the conclusion itself of "we will play something other than D&D", without splitting up the group that seems to be the correct course of action.

 

[Retreater]

*He may very well have been a jerk about how he went about things. It's hard to tell from a few lines of text. But the conclusion itself of "we will play something other than D&D", without splitting up the group that seems to be the correct course of action.

Right. My issue isn't that he stepped away from DMing. It's that he wouldn't allow them the time to discuss what they wanted to do if he wasn't DMing. Like if they wanted another DM to run D&D and if he sat back, etc. It was: "no, we're going to play board games."
I think I forget that others aren't like me (playing in multiple games every week). For many of them, this is their only D&D game, and this guy basically just shut it all down.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Shocking Conclusion?...

So they had their meeting last night. After my wife and one other player said they don't want an overly intense game, the DM said, "Sorry that's all I will run." And then without any more debate said that their D&D game time will now be online versions of Uno or Clue. My wife felt terrible about voicing her opinions and taking away the option of playing D&D. I tried to reassure her that it wasn't her fault for standing up for herself - and it is solely on the DM for taking away their options and not having discussions.
What a jerk.

Yeah, she did nothing wrong by saying what she wanted from the game. If the DM is only interested in running a streamed game for an extremely dedicated group of players, that’s his call. But he should have discussed that with his players instead of shutting discussion down and refusing to hear them out.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. My issue isn't that he stepped away from DMing. It's that he wouldn't allow them the time to discuss what they wanted to do if he wasn't DMing. Like if they wanted another DM to run D&D and if he sat back, etc. It was: "no, we're going to play board games."

I get that but I come back to, what if he had already decided he wasn't interested in playing in a D&D game that wasn't intense either?

I'm not sure opening that discussion up to then turn around and say no would have been perceived as him being any less of a Jerk. Maybe even a bigger Jerk if he handled it that way.

I think I forget that others aren't like me (playing in multiple games every week). For many of them, this is their only D&D game, and this guy basically just shut it all down.

If they want to continue playing it's probably going to be best to play without him. There's a justifiable fear he would be overly critical and take away from the enjoyment of a game anyone else was running.

 

[pogre]

The Shocking Conclusion?...

So they had their meeting last night. After my wife and one other player said they don't want an overly intense game, the DM said, "Sorry that's all I will run." And then without any more debate said that their D&D game time will now be online versions of Uno or Clue. My wife felt terrible about voicing her opinions and taking away the option of playing D&D. I tried to reassure her that it wasn't her fault for standing up for herself - and it is solely on the DM for taking away their options and not having discussions.
What a jerk.

This sounds like "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I learned years ago if I am running an involved game like Ars Magica that does require some player work outside of the game I better have buy-in right from the start.

I love my groups. They show up on time, they're genuinely great people, but they are not interested in doing much outside of the game. They are willing to read some rules, but that's about it. I tailor my games accordingly. We have fun games that I still enjoy.

Would I enjoy going much deeper with a more complex game? Yeah, sometimes I think I would. However, I also realize that is a recipe for frustration and burnout unless you have a group of players that are interested in the same.

When I do extra prep work, I try to do it without expectations. The extensive background information on the campaign world, the props, the terrain, etc. I do for my enjoyment. If the players get into it - that's just a bonus.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, at the end of the day "Know your audience" is a necessary GMing skill. Almost all the most frustrating times I've had as a GM is when I forgot that (and the others were the flip side when I had players who insisted on being Tiggers.)

 

[Blue]

Are movie stars or their agents/film studios/etc paid by the late night shows to come and be a guest or do they do that to advertise their upcoming film? Ie, for the exposure?

Sure - they get a cut of the royalties, they are effectively paid as it

And since this is the main deal, it would be like expecting a movie star to do the film "for the exposure". Heck, SAG has rules to make sure there are minimum pay rates for anyone with lines to prevent newer actors from being pressured into doing things without pay. I.E. "for the exposure".

 

[billd91]

Sure - they get a cut of the royalties, they are effectively paid as it

And since this is the main deal, it would be like expecting a movie star to do the film "for the exposure". Heck, SAG has rules to make sure there are minimum pay rates for anyone with lines to prevent newer actors from being pressured into doing things without pay. I.E. "for the exposure".

They might not get a cut of the royalties - it all depends on the contract. However, I'd wager that most movie contracts mandate a certain amount of promotional effort for headlining stars. That's been a requirement for MCU films, for example, and it's part of the work they do to get paid the contracted amount.

 

[Blue]

They might not get a cut of the royalties - it all depends on the contract. However, I'd wager that most movie contracts mandate a certain amount of promotional effort for headlining stars. That's been a requirement for MCU films, for example, and it's part of the work they do to get paid the contracted amount.

As part of their contract ... which they are getting paid for.

So either way, it's paid.