Forked Thread: DMs - No one cares how long you worked (was: Rant -- GM Control...)

[Cadfan]

Take priority over his/her responsibility? Yeah, quite probably.

Take equal priority? Hmmm... Now friction is occurring, and things are a lot more grey (and is probably the majority of situations, AFAIC).

When push comes to shove (i.e. beyond compromise - which, we all agree, is the first solution), whose right to have a good time wins out? The DM? The players? The DM and the majority of players?

If you're DMing for the right reasons, this will rarely happen.

 

[Rolflyn]

I care. In my experience, the longer a DM worked on his world or his campaign, more I enjoyed the game.

But there seem to be two approaches D&D: The first approach is to assume that the rulebooks define the game and thus players must be able to play dragonborn because it is in the books and there's no reason that dragonborn can't be named "Fluffy" because the books don't disallow it.

The second approach is to assume that the DM defined the game via his setting and campaign and the rules are in place to help the DM. In this case, the game would be fine without dragonborn or a character named Fluffy if those don't fit the setting and campaign.

These are extremes of course, so everyone stands somewhere in the middle. But I find the second approach more enjoyable. An engaged DM brings me more enjoyment. If what ignites the fires of the DM's imagination is setting up certain restrictions, I'm all for it.

I once played a 3E game (one of my first actually) where the DM banned halflings. I was itching to play a halfling, but I played a human rogue instead and had the best time in his game because he was an engaged DM.

Then I played a 3E game with an everything-goes DM. Basically the DM had no opinion about anything so the game fell apart because we knew it was going no where.

 

[Arnwyn]

rarely

As in "not never"?

You didn't respond to my post. Maybe you quoted mine by mistake? I think it's pretty clear from the outset of this thread that we're only talking about rare cases.

 

[maddman75]

I once played a 3E game (one of my first actually) where the DM banned halflings. I was itching to play a halfling, but I played a human rogue instead and had the best time in his game because he was an engaged DM.

Restrictions and such are all fine and good, but the players have to buy into it.

I ran a 3e game homebrew, where the PCs were from a very medieval Europe kind of kingdom. Full of knights and honor and such. I said that I didn't want barbarians or druids for PCs, and explained that the campaign was centered around PCs from this kingdom. Barbarians and druids represent the highlanders, savages that your PCs would consider little better than orcs or demon worshippers. Everyone agreed that this sounded like a fun campaign and we went for it.

See, the difference being that the players bought into it. They were behind the restrictions from the beginning, so no one felt constrained. Eventually they met and made peace with this tribe of savages. One PC in paticular, the halfling rogue, managed to get a lucky crit and kill an ogre single handedly. The tribesmen were impressed and named him 'Ogre-slayer' and made him an honorary member of the tribe. At his next level, he took one in barbarian.

That's the kind of coolness that can come from restrictions. But the central part is that all the players were on board as far as the restrictions of the game.

 

[The Ghost]

Restrictions and such are all fine and good, but the players have to buy into it.

...

That's the kind of coolness that can come from restrictions. But the central part is that all the players were on board as far as the restrictions of the game.

I would agree entirely with this. However, there still leaves the problem of what to do if one person is not on board. If everyone else finds the game enjoyable do we quit and do something else because one person doesn't? What if someone new joins the game at a later date and does not like the restrictions? Do we stop everyone's fun for the new guy? Or do we tell him to either accept the game or move on?

 

[maddman75]

I would agree entirely with this. However, there still leaves the problem of what to do if one person is not on board. If everyone else finds the game enjoyable do we quit and do something else because one person doesn't? What if someone new joins the game at a later date and does not like the restrictions? Do we stop everyone's fun for the new guy? Or do we tell him to either accept the game or move on?

If someone doesn't like the concept of the game, they can sit this one out.

I don't tend to go for the months/years long games, and have multiple games running at a time, so if someone doesn't play one then its no big deal. It also makes people more likely to try something different, knowing that they can be doing something else in a few weeks if they don't like it.

 

[Cadfan]

As in "not never"?

You didn't respond to my post. Maybe you quoted mine by mistake? I think it's pretty clear from the outset of this thread that we're only talking about rare cases.

I didn't directly respond to the post because responding to the post is impossible. Its too theoretical and abstract. In general, if the players are having fun the DM should be having fun because apparently he has successfully created a fun campaign that entertains the players at his table. He succeeded! He won Dungeons and Dragons! What else does he want?

If a DM finds himself in a position where his "right to have fun" is in direct conflict with his players' "right to have fun," something has gone seriously wrong and everyone should probably quit playing D&D and go home. I really mean that- no one has an obligation to DM, and no one has an obligation to play. If there's a genuine conflict, no one can be deemed to have a "lesser" right to have fun, and thereby be obliged to sit at the table and not enjoy themselves in order to facilitate someone else's "greater" right to have fun. The idea itself is ridiculous. Fortunately, its also extremely unlikely to occur if the group wasn't disfunctional to begin with.

 

[Engilbrand]

Rolflyn, you aren't one of my players, are you? I had a Dragonborn in my game named Fluffy. At one point, a friend played one, too. He was named Puffy.
Fantasy names a ridiculous to begin with. How does Fluffy seem more ridiculous than Lord Finibrek?

 

[Mournblade94]

Rolflyn, you aren't one of my players, are you? I had a Dragonborn in my game named Fluffy. At one point, a friend played one, too. He was named Puffy.
Fantasy names a ridiculous to begin with. How does Fluffy seem more ridiculous than Lord Finibrek?

Lord Finibrek is generally not used as an adjective to describe something soft.

 

[The Ghost]

If someone doesn't like the concept of the game, they can sit this one out.

I don't tend to go for the months/years long games, and have multiple games running at a time, so if someone doesn't play one then its no big deal. It also makes people more likely to try something different, knowing that they can be doing something else in a few weeks if they don't like it.

Ah, and here is where we differ. I have been playing in a campaign now for close to five years. It is very dark and grim. Four of us have been in the campaign since the beginning with a fifth player player coming in in year two. On occasion we have had others come and play only to find that their style does not mesh with our campaign. We are not about to change this campaign because someone knew wants to join but does not like the parameters that we have set up. They can either accept and join in or go somewhere else to play.

Or they can just play in our other game which is very light and loose.