I don't know what just happend, but it seems that Ayn Rand corrupted my player!

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

The OP is not pitching a fit, IMHO, he came seeking clarification of a WTF? moment.

That's just, like, your opinion man. He clearly felt no wrong doing and decided to seek clarification that, yes it was all the players fault. You are free to look at it from your DM is law perspective but I don't drink that kool-aid.

e: actually bag that, I read the OPs 2nd post wrong. In any case, c'est la vie.

I am all for tailoring the game to your players, but they were asking for a rather unusual house rule and clearly it wasn't a style of play the gm was interested in. This was obviously a mismatch of styles. My sympathies tend toward the OP because the players basicslly came off as rude. There was no reason to call the GM a hedonist (in the Randian sense). If they want to play that way that is fine. But I don't think they will find that many people who are interested.

Yeah, the players came off as rude...from the point of view of the DM. I'm skeptical that people are over-emotional beings who attack when they don't get there way. So I believe that there is more to OPs story than meets the eye.

The last part is just your dogpile on players who can't defend themselves and I know one DM who will gladly play with that houserule for them.

 

[NewJeffCT]

-But you want to continue the story don't you? Why not introduce a load mechanic, you dont play 100- hour rpgs without it don't you?

Just curious - what exactly is a load mechanic?

Is that like a video game where you go back to the last point you 'saved' the game & reload?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, the players came off as rude...from the point of view of the DM. I'm skeptical that people are over-emotional beings who attack when they don't get there way. So I believe that there is more to OPs story than meets the eye.

There could be more to the story. All we have to go on is the OP's account. Honestly if it had been any other kind of insult I would probably be more skeptical but this one in particular strikes me as the kind that comes from someone ready to attack with little provocation (that and the OP seemed more confused by the event than angry).

The last part is just your dogpile on players who can't defend themselves and I know one DM who will gladly play with that houserule for them.

I don't doubt you do. But I've found things like load mechanics are generally unpopular among most players and gms. This wasn't an attempt to dogpile just pointing out it wasn't like they were asking for a standard house rule or style of play.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

There could be more to the story. All we have to go on is the OP's account. Honestly if it had been any other kind of insult I would probably be more skeptical but this one in particular strikes me as the kind that comes from someone ready to attack with little provocation (that and the OP seemed more confused by the event than angry).

Well, we are at an impasse then.

I don't doubt you do. But I've found things like load mechanics are generally unpopular among most players and gms. This wasn't an attempt to dogpile just pointing out it wasn't like they were asking for a standard house rule or style of play.

In my experience, it is. Especially amoung gamers who have time restraints. Who wants to invest 4-5 hours every week into a story that would possibly go unfinished? It's not unreasonble to want to see a story conclude, especially when you have invested so much time and effort into it.

Age of worms was a good example. I ran that for a bunch people in their late 40's who had failed to finish it twice before. They immediately praised me when I said that I wanted to have fun and that I would make sure that we (as a group) would finish it.

So, you can either take your experience as gospel or accept that my experience is just as relevant. I don't really care which.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't discount your experience but I certainly give more weight to my own than to those expressed by posters online. I am sure there are gamers who like a load mechanic, I just haven't encountered many (and many of the people I game with, myself ibcluded) have time constraints due to other responsibilities. I would certainly consider it an unusual request.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I don't discount your experience but I certainly give more weight to my own than to those expressed by posters online. I am sure there are gamers who like a load mechanic, I just haven't encountered many (and many of the people I game with, myself ibcluded) have time constraints due to other responsibilities. I would certainly consider it an unusual request.

But it doesn't that it is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The last part is just your dogpile on players who can't defend themselves

Uhhh...no.

...and I know one DM who will gladly play with that houserule for them.

I'm sure you do. I might even be one of them.

But it's not about the rule, it's about the reaction to the DM's decision. If I'm cool with a houserule, I'll run it. If I'm not, I won't. If we don't agree, it's best we don't play the game I'm willing to run. Perhaps we can find something else to play.

But to take my rejection of a proposed HR as a reason to start some pseudo-intellectual name calling is merely childish & rude. I don't need to play with people like that.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Uhhh...no.

Umm...yes.

I'm sure you do. I might even be one of them.

But it's not about the rule, it's about the reaction to the DM's decision. If I'm cool with a houserule, I'll run it. If I'm not, I won't. If we don't agree, it's best we don't play the game I'm willing to run. Perhaps we can find something else to play.

But to take my rejection of a proposed HR as a reason to start some pseudo-intellectual name calling is merely childish & rude. I don't need to play with people like that.

You have no idea how the conversation actually went or what initial reactions were. So you can only speculate on what the OP has offered as much I can.

As I said, you can view it from your POV which clearly supports DM's as authoritative figures who have the final word on everything but I don't drink that kool-aid.

To me, your rejection of a HR is unreasonable but that's because I view D&D as a cooperative game where I work with my players and that includes accommodating or compromising on their requests. Reserving the right to reject requests, just because I do more "work", is a jerk move. I enjoy the "work" and would never begrudge players because of it.

You clearly think otherwise, so we really don't have anything else to say to each other right? I certainly won't be saying much of anything else to you.

 

[Janx]

Umm...yes.

You have no idea how the conversation actually went or what initial reactions were. So you can only speculate on what the OP has offered as much I can.

As I said, you can view it from your POV which clearly supports DM's as authoritative figures who have the final word on everything but I don't drink that kool-aid.

To me, your rejection of a HR is unreasonable but that's because I view D&D as a cooperative game where I work with my players and that includes accommodating or compromising on their requests. Reserving the right to reject requests, just because I do more "work", is a jerk move. I enjoy the "work" and would never begrudge players because of it.

You clearly think otherwise, so we really don't have anything else to say to each other right? I certainly won't be saying much of anything else to you.

I think you identify strongly with the players in the OP's story.

D&D is a game where the GM has been in charge for 40 years.

Anybody who plays where the players have greater control over what the DM must run is the exception, not the rule.

So, you might want to consider that you, and the OP's players are in the minority of the mindset that the DM is obligated to accept the player's proposal.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, that's exactly how cooperative games work. One party is not entitled to anything above another.

Depending on exactly what you mean by "above", I might have to disagree.

Cooperation does not imply equality. The GM has one role to play in the game, the player another. They each have realms of authority the other isn't generally supposed to touch. The player's will is paramount over the attempted actions of the character. The GM's will is paramount over... pretty much everything else.

The two can still cooperate - the GM flex the world a little, the player flex the character a little, while there being notable inequalities in powers over the game.

Either has the "right" to not cooperate at any given time. That comes with a responsibility to do so thoughtfully. But, ultimately, that doesn't make it wrong for one or the other to dig in their heels and just say, "No." There is, ultimately, no obligation to do what you don't want to.