Speaking only for myself:
Remathilis said:
I guess I'll stand in the vocal minority.
AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.
Right there we have a problem. I'm perfectly willing to DISCUSS what sort of game you want to play in and see if it's a good match for what I want to run. I'm also perfectly willing to have that discussion several times over the course of the campaign, and adjust my DMing style up to the point where it stops being fun for me. But if we start off with demands, then we're not going to get along so well. I prefer to work with players in my games, and to have the players work with me. When that cooperation doesn't happen, I find new players.
1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter.
I would, when your 1st level PC with a +1 sword meets a great wyrm dragon, expect him to:
a: Die if he attacks the wyrm, b: Get captured by the wyrm if he tries to run away (see option c
, c: try to negotiate. This means that, if the dragon IS there as a plot device for your character, you're going to be unhappy with the results no matter what. That's one of the problems with demands.
2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out.
If you and your fellow players take only the plot hooks that lead to evil wizards, guess what? The majority of the high-powered loot is going to be suitable for wizards. If you and your fellow players decide to take on more than you can handle, in spite of DM warnings given directly or through NPCs, you get whatever consequences fall from it. A far better statement would be, "Reasonable treasure for the challenge faced."
3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.
This is actually pretty reasonable, IMO. Be assured that, if I'm the DM, you will get it in writing before character creation dice are rolled that this is/is not a grim-n-gritty, miss a save and die, campaign. By the same token, at higher levels, save-or-die becomes far more common. If you, as a player, aren't aware of that, then I cordially suggest a different game system.
4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...
Again, reasonable - up to a point. I think a better way to put it is, "Regular advancement commensurate with the risks taken and obstacles overcome."
5-6. Reasonable, and as a DM, I wouldn't run it any other way except as a one-shot (and even then, I'd give appropriate warning).
7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...
Then don't expect me, as the DM, to put any more effort into your character than that. I'll meet you half-way (or more). But I'm only going to put in as much work into your character and his/her/its plots as you do. In most of the campaigns I run, this WILL create problems down the road.
8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.
Not appropriate as a demand, IMO. This is a play style preference. If the play style you PREFER doesn't match the play style I, as DM, prefer, then we either find a common ground or we don't play.
9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else. I am not here to be lectured to about gaming, history, religion or politics, I'm here to kill some bad things and take their stuff.
The irony of this one being listed as a dictatorial demand is huge. As friends, and in the interest of being friendly, please don't try to dictate what type of game I'm going to run. In turn, I won't dictate what type of game you're going to play.
10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM.
I'd be okay with this if one more thing was added: "I also understand that the DM reserves the right to ask me to leave, or find someone else to DM. If any of the above happens, I will conduct myself with courtesy and politeness, and I will speak to the DM privately first."
Overall, I'd view this set of demands poorly if a player (or group of players) presented it to me. Talk to me about what kind of game you want to play: Yes. Talk to me about what you like/don't like in the game: You bet. Talk to me about problems you're having in the current game: Absolutely. Demand that I do things your way: Find another game, or run one yourself.
