NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BookTenTiger" data-source="post: 8148057" data-attributes="member: 6685541">In my own experience, I've always played with friends. So "finding another GM" or kicking out a player means telling a friend they can't hang out with us once a week.The OP's premise is flawed because they are trying to make an argument, not set up an actual moral dilemma. In their situation, the DM is the flawless, underappreciated, hard working artiste, and the players are simply benefiting from all that work that was done. The player that wants to be an elf is putting in no effort and is spitting on the work done by the DM.This is a ridiculous and flawed anecdote because it ignores that D&D is a collaborative game. The OP's story would be more realistic if the DM was a video game designer and the players had bought the game.It's a no-win argument. Either you agree with the biased situation that the OP set up, or you have to side with the player who is breaking the social contract.Here's a more realistic situation:A group of friends play D&D each week. One friend has put a lot of work into a Game of Thrones style campaign, something they are very passionate about. Part of the DM's vision is that this is a human-only campaign. The campaign does not fit the play style of all the players. One player, for example, really loves to play as elves, and wants to find a way to play as an elf in this game.Whose job is it to compromise?When designing a campaign, should the DM focus on their own vision, or adapt to the preferences of the group?</blockquote>

Verification