Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzzard" data-source="post: 1141576" data-attributes="member: 3003">As a preface let me explain how I run games. I announce at the outset the rules and conditions. They will be something like X point buy, and the rules will be taken from the books I own. These books are made available to the player to borrow if they wish to use them. If the players wish to include additional stuff, I will have to be lent the book to review it. If I purchase new material, it is announced to the players, and they can review it, though the decision to use it lies within me. If people don't like the terms and conditions, well they aren't going to be forced to play. I make the primary focus of the game that the players have fun. Beyond that, everything else is a distant concern.  Having stated my methodology, I will respond to your specific points. A)Can a DM run a game by himself- obviously no, but this is a pointless question. The DM is the heart of any campaign. Granted, you can't get by without players, but the DM still is more important. He has to decide how to adjudicate the rules, set the tone, and keep the story moving. He also has a responsibility to make it fun for all involved. If he doesn't do these things well, the players should walk. Since the burden is mostly on him, the decisions should be his as well. B)If the DM decides to change to GURPs, well the players have the option of playing or walking(of course they can also object which may work). I would walk. The DM will likely learn when he runs out of players. I don't think I'd even try to waste my time arguing if this were the case, as the DM's attitude is not something I'd want to deal with. buzzard</blockquote>

Verification