Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 3639918" data-attributes="member: 38357">Well, to me demanding X from a DM and walking out of a game that does not feature X are pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying that &quot;demand&quot; isn't a loaded, poor choice of words, but it's also pretty accurate.As a DM, I want to know what a given player's expectations (X-pectations?) are, and also specifically which ones are not open to discussion. I've had too many players come to me and say, f'rinstance, &quot;I'm thinking of playing a Samurai.&quot;, when they in fact mean &quot;I will not be playing in your game unless I am allowed to play a Samurai.&quot; If a Samurai isn't really appropriate for my game, then this leads to wasting many hours over several weeks trying to wheedle out of them just exactly what about the Samurai they like so that we can find a character that will fit into the game and also provide them what they want. When I could have, instead, been trying to fill a vacancy in my group that I really didn't know was there...I've been thinking more and more that some sort of actual &quot;group rules document&quot; that specifically lays out the responsibilities and boundaries of both players and DM might possibly be a good thing for my current group. I haven't actually put anything like that on paper since I was 12... The big hurdle would be that my current group is having many of the problems it is having largely because they just don't want to / won't / can't discuss the game (and their expectations for it, etc.) in a really meaningful way...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 3639918, member: 38357"] Well, to me demanding [I]X[/I] from a DM and walking out of a game that does not feature [I]X[/I] are pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying that "demand" isn't a loaded, poor choice of words, but it's also pretty accurate. As a DM, I want to know what a given player's expectations ([I]X[/I]-pectations?) are, and also specifically which ones are not open to discussion. I've had too many players come to me and say, f'rinstance, "I'm thinking of playing a Samurai.", when they in fact mean "I will not be playing in your game unless I am allowed to play a Samurai." If a Samurai isn't really appropriate for my game, then this leads to wasting many hours over several weeks trying to wheedle out of them just exactly what about the Samurai they like so that we can find a character that will fit into the game and also provide them what they want. When I could have, instead, been trying to fill a vacancy in my group that I really didn't know was there... I've been thinking more and more that some sort of actual "group rules document" that specifically lays out the responsibilities and boundaries of both players and DM might possibly be a good thing for my current group. I haven't actually put anything like that on paper since I was 12... The big hurdle would be that my current group is having many of the problems it is having largely because they just don't want to / won't / can't discuss the game (and their expectations for it, etc.) in a really meaningful way... [/QUOTE]

Verification