[Massive Snippage] 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
Again 'It is not about what the players' want... ever' is
really hard to misinterpret. I do not see any way to interpret that as 'It is not about what the players' want... ever, unless the GM is just plain wrong, eh?' If he had made it even slightly more flexible, then I would not have a problem, even though this particular thread is specifically about a player who is getting very annoyed with his GM.
In the case of the OP it
does sound like the players are at the bitter ends of their patience. At this point taking the stance of '
The GM is always right!' would be a good way to lose the campaign.
I do not always give in to the wants of the players - Hell, I only get feedback from them because I
ask for it. (Using a handy dandy sheet from one of the Campaign Planner books.) And I do not ask until the adventure is over.
When Eric (it is
always Eric) wants to buy a magic item then he may be disappointed to discover that there is none of that particular item readily available, so if he wants one he will have to commission it and wait for a month. I do not say 'Sure, there is a Frostbreath Broadsword in stock! Let me wrap this up for you!'
When Eric (see, I told you it was always Eric) wanted me to drop Subplots from Spycraft I told him 'No, I like them, and it appears that so do the other players, so cope.' So, he coped. Ironically, he eventually became the biggest supporter of the use of Subplots, adding them to his own game.... (He runs a great Spycraft game, and should do it more often.)
When I suggested adding piecemeal armor (okay, maybe it isn't
always Eric), on the other hand, the players pointed out that doing so in the middle of the campaign, requiring everybody to recalculate their AC, redetermine weight and encumbrance, and buy any missing pieces, was going to be a massive pain in the gluteous, well, they were right. It would not have been major at the beginning of the game, but while they were in the field, miles from resupply?
On the other hand, if I tell them that this or that Prestige Class is unavailable, that elves are not available as a player race in my homebrew, that guns are fairly common? I get my way.
As an aside - Eric is also the only player I have that I
know reads these boards.... Hi Eric!
I have been in three campaigns that broke up because of a GM that tried the My Way or The Highway approach (this means about one a decade).
The first game that I was ever in was reorganized with me as DM because the original DM and his best friend were essentially running the whole party - the DM's BFF cast
Charm Person on the whole party, then described what the PCs did, rather than have the players play their own damned characters. He was surprised when he tried the Highway approach only to be told that it wasn't his game any more, goodbye to the both of ye. The game had lasted less than three weeks. The Highway approach really does not work when the game is being held at any place that is not your home.
One game blew up because the GM would get stoned, change a bunch of stuff, forget what the Hell was going on, then get angry when the game didn't go as he had planned. (I will never,
ever play with anybody that smokes pot during a game again. It is just not worth it.)
When called on it he had a hissy fit, and in the end everyone walked, including the folks that were getting stoned with him. (I have never smoked pot, in part because I break out in hives if exposed to the smoke - I do not want to think about what it would do inside my lungs. But then, I don't drink much either.) That time the game
was being held at the GM's home, but the players still walked.
The third I have already described. There was no concerted plan to end the campaign, just one week no one showed up for the game.
I'd feel bad, but the players
did try to talk to him about the problems. More than any other, this is the example that comes to mind reading Pilgrim's post.
A fourth campaign I was not in, but ended up with the disaffected players, then later with the GM himself as a player. This is the only one I know that has a happy ending - he watched what I was doing, asked his players back after apologizing, and has been running his campaign off and on ever since.
He was just plain a control freak, running railroad ride adventures. But he
learned. I have played in his campaign, and he is a good GM these days. I could say that I taught him everything he knows, but truthfully, I just showed him how to listen.
I have never had a game fall apart because I was being a dictator. I have had a game where the campaign ended when we realized that
none of the original players were still with the group (graduations, jobs, marriages, babies).... So, we did a reboot - I had about a dozen adventures that they had never played in, because they weren't in the original group.
I have had games where the campaign ended because it was
done. The BBEG routed, stability restored, the One Ring chucked in the volcano, etc.. It has almost become the norm for me, especially for Spycraft. Most recently a steampunk/gargoyles game using those rules. Not sure these count, because we seem to keep starting new campaigns with the same players. And most recently the teenage children of some of the players. (They have their own game every other Saturday, though we skipped last Saturday for a party.)
I had a Vampire: the Dark Ages game end because we were planning to update to the
new! shiny! Dark Ages: Vampire rules, only to realize that we really didn't like the new rules, and had gotten sidetracked because I was running something else while we waited. (Sound stupid? Yeah, it was. We should have just kept on playing.)
The Auld Grump, I seem to have fallen off topic... must be time for food....
