Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[TheAuldGrump]

Agreed. But it is a group by which the DM/GM decides which game is being played and how. The players then have the option to play or not. Sure they can voice opinions about certain elements, but ultimately, the DM/GM makes the call and the players should respect those decisions or not play.

Maybe not at your table.

Only within the boundaries set by the DM/GM and his game.

Sure, but if the DM/GM decides that those issues or play styles are antithesis to how he wants the game to run, then the players can eat it have fun or walk.


Um, yeah. Thanks for reiterating my point. If the players don't want to play the game the DM/GM is running or in the style he is running it in, then they shouldn't play. They should avoid the game and let those players that do want to play, play without the less interested players causing problems by constantly whining or berating the game play and rules.

Same goes for a DM/GM who doesn't like the group's style of play. He can either deal with it and run them or drop the game and do something else, whether find new players or become a player, letting someone else run.

He can also wonder why he has no players, never realizing that he never deserved any.

At this point, I would not play in a game with a petty tinpot dictator for a GM. I have better things to to do, like being a grandiose megalomaniac puppeteer of a GM. My players are having fun.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

Hmm... Pilgrim took a lot of flak for that statement. I tend to agree with the spirit of it. While I'll take input from the players, and while I'll try to run a game that they'll all enjoy, when it comes down to it, I'm going to run a style of game that I find the most enjoyable.

That's not to say that their wants don't matter (which is what Pilgrim said)... it's more of "their wants don't matter as much as mine do." And, that's not to be entirely selfish, or anything. It's so that I can enjoy the play experience, and so that they can have more fun since their GM is enjoying himself. Ever had a GM run a game that he didn't like playing? The play experience is worse than if he's having a great time.

Now, like I said, I'll try to run a game that they'll enjoy, but no way will their wants ever trump mine. If that's the case, they can run a game. I'd rather enjoy the game I'm running, letting me invest as much as I can, letting my creative juices flow, letting me feel inspired, than to ever run a game that they like but I don't like as much.

It's not to be controlling. It's so that we can all enjoy the game more. If my style doesn't match up with their preferred style, so be it. They can drop the game, or run a game that I'll be happy to play in.

So far, after years of GMing, I'm stuck with a full group who plays 10 hours once a week (and sometimes another session on weekends), and they always make me run the game. I've turned players away, kicked them out, or otherwise denied them access to my game, but I've never had a player walk out, or had a shortage of players. That means while my position might seem extreme, my execution probably isn't.

Regardless, if it ever comes to their wants or mine... my wants win the day. As far as me running any game, it's better for everyone that way. Not saying it's true for all groups, but I am saying that I sympathize with Pilgrim to a large degree. As always, play what you like

I get what you're saying JC and by and large I agree. Although, I have to admit, the whole, "The DM's fun comes first" thing does set my teeth on edge. I guess because IME, so many DM's change that statement slightly to be "Only the DM's fun comes first."

That's where I tend to jump off the train. There are times when I do think it's worth it for DM's to back off and let the players have whatever it is that they want. Not always and there's certainly no hard and fast rules here. Sometimes being the key.

Yeah, you might not like it (the non-specific you here, not you JC), whatever "it" is, but, often I've found that trusting the players results in more interesting games. Again, not always. Just because the player came up with the idea doesn't make it great any more than just because the DM did. But, I've found that for me, relaxing the grip on the reins has allowed the players to have a much more profound impact on the game and made the game better for everyone.

Certainly taking Pilgrim's POV would not fly at my table. Heck, I've got enough competition for the DM's chair without being dictatorial about it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah - communication is key.

The thing that is easy to forget is that communication goes both ways - before implementing a major house rule I always talk to the players first, sometimes putting it to a vote. I do not always win these votes. (I wanted to use piecemeal armor. The answering 'NO!' fair shook the rafters.) Listening is as important as speaking.

The Auld Grump

I agree when ever I do a house rule I ask for opinions and if everyone hates it then I drop it.

While I hold the opinion that DMs have the final say on rules and what happens in their games they don't need to be tyrants about it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I agree when ever I do a house rule I ask for opinions and if everyone hates it then I drop it.

While I hold the opinion that DMs have the final say on rules and what happens in their games they don't need to be tyrants about it.

That is the thing. I would not let the players dictate my plots, for example - run roughshod over them, on occasion, but not tell me what they are.

If I come up with a rule that causes more difficulties than it solves then I expect the players to complain. Heck, after a session or two of trying out a rule I will ask them again - sometimes it takes a while to realize that the rules suck.

And I think that I would be bored to tears if I had players that let me get away with being a tyrant.

The Auld Grump - benevolent dictator....

 

[JamesonCourage]

Notice that your answer implicitly includes a middle ground. It may be weighted in the DM's direction, and I agree that it should be, but there is still compromise being made.

I don't infer much of a middle ground in Pilgrim's statement.

Whereas I bet there is one. And that was before his latest post, saying that players are welcome to give their opinion, but the GM makes the decision on it. That probably true for the majority of group out there. It does not seem extreme to me.

He can also wonder why he has no players, never realizing that he never deserved any.

I'd say I have a very similar mindset to his, and I have 6 players (with a 7th on the way), and that's after a long term player stopped for school, and turning down another earlier this year after I didn't like his style.

So, either this is a bad joke, or it's demonstrably false.

At this point, I would not play in a game with a petty tinpot dictator for a GM. I have better things to to do, like being a grandiose megalomaniac puppeteer of a GM. My players are having fun.

The implication that his players (and thus my players) aren't having fun is quite amusing, but probably not the way you intended. As always, play what you like

I get what you're saying JC and by and large I agree.

First things first: I'm tired of us agreeing. It's still happening too frequently, and our new-found unity is starting to make me uncomfortable

Although, I have to admit, the whole, "The DM's fun comes first" thing does set my teeth on edge. I guess because IME, so many DM's change that statement slightly to be "Only the DM's fun comes first."

This is a little closer to disagreeing, but unfortunately I can see where you're coming from.

That's where I tend to jump off the train. There are times when I do think it's worth it for DM's to back off and let the players have whatever it is that they want. Not always and there's certainly no hard and fast rules here. Sometimes being the key.

And, again, I can agree to no hard and fast rules. Darn it.

Yeah, you might not like it (the non-specific you here, not you JC), whatever "it" is, but, often I've found that trusting the players results in more interesting games. Again, not always. Just because the player came up with the idea doesn't make it great any more than just because the DM did. But, I've found that for me, relaxing the grip on the reins has allowed the players to have a much more profound impact on the game and made the game better for everyone.

Ideas are different from everything I was thinking in my post. That included technology level, genre, subgenre, gritty or gonzo, realistic or fantastic, political or social, hack and slash or not, and the like.

Certainly taking Pilgrim's POV would not fly at my table. Heck, I've got enough competition for the DM's chair without being dictatorial about it.

I often wonder what my group would be like if that was the case. People love my game, and I love running it, so it's all good, but I feel like I'd have less players trying to take things like tremorsense if they GMed every now and again. But maybe that line of thought is for another thread.

Good talking with you again... unfortunately. As always, play what you like

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'd say I have a very similar mindset to his, and I have 6 players (with a 7th on the way), and that's after a long term player stopped for school, and turning down another earlier this year after I didn't like his style.

So, either this is a bad joke, or it's demonstrably false.

No, it is demonstrably true - because I have seen it happen, and have been one of the players who walked out of a game, leaving the GM sitting alone.

In both cases we are are arguing specific instances, neither argument is either true or false, except in specific instances.

The implication that his players (and thus my players) aren't having fun is quite amusing, but probably not the way you intended. As always, play what you like

No, the implication is that neither I, my players, nor the folks that I play with when I get to play, would have fun. And frankly, if you do indeed run games as dictatorially as Pilgrim has stated should always be the case ('ever' is pretty damned specific that way) then I would likely walk from your game as well.

In actuality however, I doubt that you are as dictatorial as that, or you likely would not have that many players.

My opinion is that a GM has much more control over the game than any other player, perhaps more than all the others combined as long as they are all having fun. The GM's fun is as important as any other player's, his opinion is certainly more important than any other's, but he is not the only one playing. If the gathered players all have a problem with something that the GM is implementing, solely for his own enjoyment, then they need to talk to him, to make the game fun for them as well.

If the GM refuses to compromise, if the game continues to be fun only for him, well, he can sit alone in the dark, wondering where his players are. And he will deserve that fate.

The Auld Grump

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, it is demonstrably true - because I have seen it happen, and have been one of the players who walked out of a game, leaving the GM sitting alone.

No, see, if it was demonstrably true, then being that type of GM would mean players would always do what you're saying. They don't (as evidenced by my group), therefore it's demonstrably false.

In both cases we are are arguing specific instances, neither argument is either true or false, except in specific instances.

I was commenting on your reply to his style. If you're saying that his style might make it so some players may not want to play with him, then yes, that's true. Of course, that's true of basically every play style, so... okay?

No, the implication is that neither I, my players, nor the folks that I play with when I get to play, would have fun.

I think you have very little idea how much fun you or your players would have. Of course, you'll disagree, but that's okay. You know your players much better than I do, so you can make a judgement call on what they'd like much better than I can. Then again, on that note, I know my play style much better than you do, and I can make a judgement call on how players respond to it much better than you can.

I guess we'll call it a wash?

And frankly, if you do indeed run games as dictatorially as Pilgrim has stated should always be the case ('ever' is pretty damned specific that way) then I would likely walk from your game as well.

In actuality however, I doubt that you are as dictatorial as that, or you likely would not have that many players.

I doubt he's as dictatorial as you're making him out to be. Which is why I posted what I did, and said I could strongly sympathize with him.

My view of "what I say goes" is probably as unwavering as his. Of course, that's true of nearly every GM, it's just a matter of where they draw that line. Can your players vote to bypass challenges without rolling? Can one person just make up stuff that happens, even if he's not GMing? Probably not.

The GM gets to make the final call on these sorts of things, just like Pilgrim said. And, if the player doesn't like it, he can walk. Just like Pilgrim said. And if the GM doesn't want to adjust to the players' preferred style, he doesn't have to run a game for them. Just like Pilgrim said.

Calling him dictatorial, or implying he's a tyrant, is potentially mischaracterizing his point.

My opinion is that a GM has much more control over the game than any other player, perhaps more than all the others combined as long as they are all having fun. The GM's fun is as important as any other player's, his opinion is certainly more important than any other's, but he is not the only one playing. If the gathered players all have a problem with something that the GM is implementing, solely for his own enjoyment, then they need to talk to him, to make the game fun for them as well.

And he gets the final say on his game. His wants for the game trumps theirs, like Pilgrim said. Now, one of his wants might be to run a style that they explicitly want, and that's cool. It doesn't contradict what Pilgrim said. However, if he doesn't want to, his want trumps theirs, and they can walk if they want to. Just like Pilgrim said.

If the GM refuses to compromise, if the game continues to be fun only for him, well, he can sit alone in the dark, wondering where his players are. And he will deserve that fate.

That's if there's a problem with his style, right? Because I have an extremely similar approach to running a game that Pilgrim does, and I have absolutely no problem retaining or obtaining players. I think that implying that "what the GM says goes" is somehow tyrannical and will drive players off is misleading. Or, perhaps you don't understand that it isn't always the case. Either way, I think it's demonstrably wrong.

Feel free to disagree. I'm not saying to run your game differently. I'm saying that in my games, while I'm open to feedback (as is Pilgrim, from his posts), I get the final call, and I'm running the game the way I want to. Blow it out of proportion all you want. At the end of the day, I have a full group of players who love my game and my style. Implying that I'll somehow lose them will only amuse me. As always, though, play what you like

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No, see, if it was demonstrably true, then being that type of GM would mean players would always do what you're saying. They don't (as evidenced by my group), therefore it's demonstrably false.


I was commenting on your reply to his style. If you're saying that his style might make it so some players may not want to play with him, then yes, that's true. Of course, that's true of basically every play style, so... okay?


I think you have very little idea how much fun you or your players would have. Of course, you'll disagree, but that's okay. You know your players much better than I do, so you can make a judgement call on what they'd like much better than I can. Then again, on that note, I know my play style much better than you do, and I can make a judgement call on how players respond to it much better than you can.

I guess we'll call it a wash?


I doubt he's as dictatorial as you're making him out to be. Which is why I posted what I did, and said I could strongly sympathize with him.

My view of "what I say goes" is probably as unwavering as his. Of course, that's true of nearly every GM, it's just a matter of where they draw that line. Can your players vote to bypass challenges without rolling? Can one person just make up stuff that happens, even if he's not GMing? Probably not.

The GM gets to make the final call on these sorts of things, just like Pilgrim said. And, if the player doesn't like it, he can walk. Just like Pilgrim said. And if the GM doesn't want to adjust to the players' preferred style, he doesn't have to run a game for them. Just like Pilgrim said.

Calling him dictatorial, or implying he's a tyrant, is potentially mischaracterizing his point.


And he gets the final say on his game. His wants for the game trumps theirs, like Pilgrim said. Now, one of his wants might be to run a style that they explicitly want, and that's cool. It doesn't contradict what Pilgrim said. However, if he doesn't want to, his want trumps theirs, and they can walk if they want to. Just like Pilgrim said.


That's if there's a problem with his style, right? Because I have an extremely similar approach to running a game that Pilgrim does, and I have absolutely no problem retaining or obtaining players. I think that implying that "what the GM says goes" is somehow tyrannical and will drive players off is misleading. Or, perhaps you don't understand that it isn't always the case. Either way, I think it's demonstrably wrong.

Feel free to disagree. I'm not saying to run your game differently. I'm saying that in my games, while I'm open to feedback (as is Pilgrim, from his posts), I get the final call, and I'm running the game the way I want to. Blow it out of proportion all you want. At the end of the day, I have a full group of players who love my game and my style. Implying that I'll somehow lose them will only amuse me. As always, though, play what you like

Look at Pilgrim's first post - the use of the word 'ever'. See it? That does not leave a lot of room for misinterpretation. He made a blanket statement, and one that is, demonstrably, false.

The GM is not always right, and in my estimate the worst way to find it out is to make blanket determinations and then end up wondering where your players are.

He does not say 'the GM's wishes are the most important' he says that the players' wishes never matter. That the GM's views are the only ones that matter.

And so still I say, piffle.

The Auld Grump

 

[SteveC]

Perhaps I'm just getting cranky as I get older, but I find I have less and less patience for a game that I don't enjoy. When I was younger, I had far fewer responsibilities, so if the game was less than stellar, what did it matter? Nowadays, there's so much competing for my time that I just don't have the patience for bad gaming, even with friends.

In short, I'm going to suggest being direct and honest with people and saying "I'm not having fun in the game for these reasons..." If the GM wants to run that kind of game after that, more power to them, I just won't be able to stick around for it.

Friends can hear that kind of thing, and friends can also make plans to do things that aren't gaming to spend time together.

Open, honest communication is the key: if you're not having fun, take a break and come back when things change. "This style of game just isn't for me," is not an insult, after all, and if the other players don't agree with you, then it might make the game better if you don't play.

That's my suggestion, anyway.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Look at Pilgrim's first post

Sure, let's look at it:

It makes a bad game if that's not what the players want to play. And it sounds, from the OP, that's increasingly what is going on.

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

Let's see... as far as he's said, the GM's wants always trump player wants, in the context of the game they're playing. He was speaking within the context of the type of game the players will be playing in.

Within the context of "we're playing the game the way I want to, my will always trumps yours" seems like a non-controversial statement. Sometimes my will is accommodating others, sometimes it's not. Either way, my will trumps yours when I'm running the game.

Now, my will trumping yours doesn't have to include my not taking your input. That's not what that means. It just means that my wants are the only thing that matters in the end within the context of the game I'll be running. Your wants don't matter. Your opinion might, but your will is not going to trump mine.

I can see where you're coming from, but you're honestly taking it over the edge (in my opinion). Be offended or disagree all you want. I feel like the people taking this to an extreme off of a fairly muddied statement (based on the number of people that disagreed) are more in the wrong than he is. But that's me.

- the use of the word 'ever'. See it? That does not leave a lot of room for misinterpretation. He made a blanket statement, and one that is, demonstrably, false.

From my point of view, it's not. Your wants just happen to line up with giving in to the wants of the players. Semantics to you, perhaps. Maybe even to me. But it's a detail that gives his point of view a new (gentler) perspective.

The GM is not always right, and in my estimate the worst way to find it out is to make blanket determinations and then end up wondering where your players are.

Of course, he didn't say the GM was always right. And again, you're assuming that he'll lose players (or implying that he will). Which, again, amuses me.

He does not say 'the GM's wishes are the most important' he says that the players' wishes never matter. That the GM's views are the only ones that matter.

And so still I say, piffle.

To the type of game they'll be running, they are. The players can voice their opinion, but the GM will have the complete and final say (based on his wants) of what type of game it is. Then, players can play or walk. Their opinions can be factors, but the GM's wants are the only thing that matters for the type of game he runs.

Maybe we're talking past one another, but the implication that this mindset will make me lose players seems extremely baseless to me. It's obviously not for you, but again, I think that it applies to you, as well. The lines are just drawn differently.

I like your style man, and I hope I'm not coming off as too offensive here. I like discussion, and I dislike arguments. This post is aimed more for clarity than to be dismissive, and I'm sorry if anything bled through into my text. Thanks for the talk, and another viewpoint. As always, play what you like