Don't make me roll for initiative.........again

[Raven Crowking]

It is not that there are more players. It is that both players and DMs have to compromise when there are perceived (rightly or wrongly) game mechanic or campaign issues.

I'm not sure that this is the thread to discuss this on, although I am happy to do so later in more detail, on another thread, if you desire.

My general viewpoint is: If you want me in your game, either as DM or player, it has to be worthwhile for me. I do this for fun; I do not get paid for playing D&D (unfortunately).

If I am running the game, I will run it as I desire. If you still want to play, great, and if I also want you in you're in. If you don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another DMing style, or I prefer another playing style.

If you're running the game, you run it as you desire. If I still want to play, great, and if you also want me in I'm in. If I don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another playing style, or I prefer another DMing style.

The idea that, as a hobby, I have to run a game the way someone else wants it run is ludicrous. I'll run whatever kind of game I want to run. If I don't have any players as a result, then I may well have to rethink what I'm doing and decide what I want more: my style or some players.

However, no one has a "right" to tell me how to run a game, any more than I have a "right" to tell anyone how to play. Those sorts of "rights" begin and end at the door.

No one in this game needs to compromise. Many people may well compromise because they want a number of things, and failing to compromise causes them to fail to meet any of their goals (or, at least, the most important of those goals).

This doesn't make the DM "god." Nor is the DM some form of servant of the players forced to follow majority rule. If "several of his players have a major issue with his game" the DM can choose to compromise, can choose to seek players more in line with his play style, can choose to fold up shop, or can choose to see whether or not the players have a serious enough issue to quit the game (i.e., keep things as they are and try to ride it out).

You cannot force anyone to DM. Nor can you force anyone to DM as you want. Nor can any DM anywhere force anyone to play.

Claiming anything else is, as you put it, baloney.

In my campaign, I will listen to player input. Player input may change my mind, and thus change what "my way" is. But I am the final authority, and "My way or the highway" is an explicit social pact.

Again, happy to discuss this further on another thread. However, any advice (as that upthread) telling a player to just gang up on the DM and force him to change may well have unintended consequences, and it would be a disservice to let the advice sit without mentioning what those consequences may be.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why are you bothering with counting the numbers? Once initiative order has been determined, the numbers are meaningless, only the order matters. It doesn't mater if my initiative is a "20" or a "27", I'm going before the guy who rolled a "16", and if there's nobody in between the two of us, it doesn't matter if he rolled one less than me, or ten.

Just arrange the order once at the start of combat and then you don't need to worry about the "counting down" clumsiness, just who is next. I use cards and just arrange them in the initiative order and cycle through them as combat proceeds. It speeds up combat tremendously.

Been there, done that. With this group, counting down works far, far better.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Y'know, the funny thing is that IME, players still require the initiative numbers to keep track of when they go even with the one-init/combat rule. Why? Because the DM almost never explicitly states the NPCs initiative and they don't know when they are up.

It also helps players realize that time is ticking down, realize how close they are to getting actions, and focus on what their next action is.

 

[3catcircus]

I'm not sure that this is the thread to discuss this on, although I am happy to do so later in more detail, on another thread, if you desire.

My general viewpoint is: If you want me in your game, either as DM or player, it has to be worthwhile for me. I do this for fun; I do not get paid for playing D&D (unfortunately).

If I am running the game, I will run it as I desire. If you still want to play, great, and if I also want you in you're in. If you don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another DMing style, or I prefer another playing style.

If you're running the game, you run it as you desire. If I still want to play, great, and if you also want me in I'm in. If I don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another playing style, or I prefer another DMing style.

The idea that, as a hobby, I have to run a game the way someone else wants it run is ludicrous. I'll run whatever kind of game I want to run. If I don't have any players as a result, then I may well have to rethink what I'm doing and decide what I want more: my style or some players.

However, no one has a "right" to tell me how to run a game, any more than I have a "right" to tell anyone how to play. Those sorts of "rights" begin and end at the door.

No one in this game needs to compromise. Many people may well compromise because they want a number of things, and failing to compromise causes them to fail to meet any of their goals (or, at least, the most important of those goals).

This doesn't make the DM "god." Nor is the DM some form of servant of the players forced to follow majority rule. If "several of his players have a major issue with his game" the DM can choose to compromise, can choose to seek players more in line with his play style, can choose to fold up shop, or can choose to see whether or not the players have a serious enough issue to quit the game (i.e., keep things as they are and try to ride it out).

You cannot force anyone to DM. Nor can you force anyone to DM as you want. Nor can any DM anywhere force anyone to play.

Claiming anything else is, as you put it, baloney.

In my campaign, I will listen to player input. Player input may change my mind, and thus change what "my way" is. But I am the final authority, and "My way or the highway" is an explicit social pact.

Again, happy to discuss this further on another thread. However, any advice (as that upthread) telling a player to just gang up on the DM and force him to change may well have unintended consequences, and it would be a disservice to let the advice sit without mentioning what those consequences may be.

Preach on, brother!

 

[kigmatzomat]

<Snippity Snip!>
In my campaign, I will listen to player input. Player input may change my mind, and thus change what "my way" is. But I am the final authority, and "My way or the highway" is an explicit social pact.

..... However, any advice (as that upthread) telling a player to just gang up on the DM and force him to change may well have unintended consequences, and it would be a disservice to let the advice sit without mentioning what those consequences may be.

QFT.

If I have a table rule I'll listen to player input but in the end it comes down to running what I'm comfortable running. Players can stay or go, no hard feelings. However, if players told me what rules I'd be running I'd laugh out loud right in their faces. There is a social contract between player and GM; not to change the rules without telling the players in advance, use the same rules for NPCs and PCs, avoid using OOC knowledge, give the players the opportunity for equivalent spotlight time, be fair & consistent with rulings and to generally try to run a game enjoyable for everyone.

But that social contract does not obligate the DM to kowtow to each and every whim of the players. "Enjoyable to everyone" applies equally to the DM and if he so enjoys rolling init or so dislikes the cyclical initiative then he has every right to refuse to run the game that way.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm not sure that this is the thread to discuss this on, although I am happy to do so later in more detail, on another thread, if you desire.

My general viewpoint is: If you want me in your game, either as DM or player, it has to be worthwhile for me. I do this for fun; I do not get paid for playing D&D (unfortunately).

If I am running the game, I will run it as I desire. If you still want to play, great, and if I also want you in you're in. If you don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another DMing style, or I prefer another playing style.

If you're running the game, you run it as you desire. If I still want to play, great, and if you also want me in I'm in. If I don't want to play, that's OK too. It doesn't destroy friendships for me if you prefer another playing style, or I prefer another DMing style.

The idea that, as a hobby, I have to run a game the way someone else wants it run is ludicrous. I'll run whatever kind of game I want to run. If I don't have any players as a result, then I may well have to rethink what I'm doing and decide what I want more: my style or some players.

However, no one has a "right" to tell me how to run a game, any more than I have a "right" to tell anyone how to play. Those sorts of "rights" begin and end at the door.

No one in this game needs to compromise. Many people may well compromise because they want a number of things, and failing to compromise causes them to fail to meet any of their goals (or, at least, the most important of those goals).

This doesn't make the DM "god." Nor is the DM some form of servant of the players forced to follow majority rule. If "several of his players have a major issue with his game" the DM can choose to compromise, can choose to seek players more in line with his play style, can choose to fold up shop, or can choose to see whether or not the players have a serious enough issue to quit the game (i.e., keep things as they are and try to ride it out).

You cannot force anyone to DM. Nor can you force anyone to DM as you want. Nor can any DM anywhere force anyone to play.

Claiming anything else is, as you put it, baloney.

In my campaign, I will listen to player input. Player input may change my mind, and thus change what "my way" is. But I am the final authority, and "My way or the highway" is an explicit social pact.

Again, happy to discuss this further on another thread. However, any advice (as that upthread) telling a player to just gang up on the DM and force him to change may well have unintended consequences, and it would be a disservice to let the advice sit without mentioning what those consequences may be.

I somewhat agree and disagree with this statement. If someone isn't running a game the way you enjoy or their house rules differ so much from the game that it makes it unenjoyeable for you, then by all means they have a right to complain and leave. IN this situation, I"d be upset with the system, only because as a working adult, I don't want to spend most of the time in combat and it doesnt seem that the DM is that concerned with it with this system. To demand that everyone in your game runs the way you want to without any say so is very dictator like , and is not "shaping" the player around you. Dang, Enworld for throwing away that psych thread because I could have sworn that that ws what it was about, player and dm compromise choice. And I could have sworn you sid something to the point where you would allow something in a game if discussed with the player. I know it had something to do with ninjas and dinsours...man eh forget it. In any case demanding on either side is always wrong, but there should always be the open door of communication of discussion and suggestiong.

Now, there are three situations.

1. I just join the game. In this situation, I dont have a righ to demand a game, I have joined a train that is already in motion. I will glady gaet off game A as it is not my style. Id'd tell any player to d that as well. There's no way I tell anyone to stay in any situation (game, work, personal, relationship) if they are not enjoying themselves in it.

2. These are a group of friends and the group have been together for sometime in an established group and the rules have been the same for a bit. In this situation, this is an established group and I have the DM, has the right to compromise with the group on rules. In this situation, I"d still leave the group, but probably more biterally because I assumed that the group and the dm were friends. I'd be mad if they didnt consider my time important. This happened to me in my first group when the group opted for a diceless game (again) . The first game was fun with one of the DMs but the one in charge at the end was horrible and made it an his super npc and the supporting pcs game. No one saw the problem but me so i left.

3. These are friends and this grup have been together and this is a new group. In a new group, I'd fully expect all to agree on the rules at the beginning. Definatly not a DM suggests the rules and everyone falls in line out of friendship thing (though that happens). I think the players should be as much apart into building the games as the players are.

Of course there are exceptions to this. I think if the DM is the one with the world idea, and the rules are associated with that idea, the players should be more open to accepting them. Case in point, half the players in my game hate that I dont have any magic items, hate that armor equals damage reducation and hate that they have to plan for combat more so than running head first in. I"ve heard all the complaints and talked about it with the player, they still dont like it, but understand that for the flavor of that world, that is how the rules best suit it. Instead of just telling them this is how its going to be, I told them that if they can figure out a better way to display the low magic and magical disrutpion of the world I'm all for it. Since the thing has been dropped. Now my players did hate not rolling their own initiative after a while and I have since switched back to them rolling thier own initiatives.

 

[KarinsDad]

But I am the final authority, and "My way or the highway" is an explicit social pact.

No, the players could vote you out as DM if you are not reasonable.

The social pact goes both ways, it is not just your way, regardless of what you think. There are multiple people sitting at the table and the DM is just one of them. The DM has certain expectations and responsibilities and the players have certain expectations and responsiblities and although all of these are not always discussed and agreed upon before a campaign starts, they do still exist.

And, reasonable DMs and players realize this. They realize that DMs compromise just like players do. The DM is final authority to a point. If he makes reasonable rulings and an entertaining campaign, he is given the continued privilege to DM and he is given that final adjudication authority by his players.

But, DMing is not a right. It is a privilege. Games have and do go south when a DM abuses that privilege and some DM house rules have been known to torpedo a campaign. My way or the highway does sometimes (rarely) lead to the highway for the DM.

 

[DonTadow]

No, the players could vote you out as DM if you are not reasonable.

The social pact goes both ways, it is not just your way, regardless of what you think. There are multiple people sitting at the table and the DM is just one of them. The DM has certain expectations and responsibilities and the players have certain expectations and responsiblities and although all of these are not always discussed and agreed upon before a campaign starts, they do still exist.

And, reasonable DMs and players realize this. They realize that DMs compromise just like players do. The DM is final authority to a point. If he makes reasonable rulings and an entertaining campaign, he is given the continued privilege to DM and he is given that final adjudication authority by his players.

But, DMing is not a right. It is a privilege. Games have and do go south when a DM abuses that privilege and some DM house rules have been known to torpedo a campaign. My way or the highway does sometimes (rarely) lead to the highway for the DM.

Not every ..actually not even most, situations will allow you, the dm, to be voted out as DM no matter the situation. I know that that wouldnt happen in my game. The game is at my house for one, and I started it a while back with different rotating parties making it near impossible. Now the players can just not play in the game, that is their choice, maybe even form another game somewhere else, which happened to my second group, eventually we all left and formed another group a bit later.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not every ..actually not even most, situations will allow you, the dm, to be voted out as DM no matter the situation. I know that that wouldnt happen in my game. The game is at my house for one, and I started it a while back with different rotating parties making it near impossible. Now the players can just not play in the game, that is their choice, maybe even form another game somewhere else, which happened to my second group, eventually we all left and formed another group a bit later.

True. There is a certain amount of momentum built up, especially once a game goes past the one year point. Typically, if a game is going to fold due to conflicting styles/rules, it folds within the first 3 to 6 months, at least in my experience.

 

[Storm Raven]

Been there, done that. With this group, counting down works far, far better.

I simply refuse to believe you on that point. Counting down is just such a cumbersome way to achieve the desired effect; equivalent to saying "muzzle loading muskets are much quicker to use than breech loaders". I think you must be leaving something out of your explanations.