Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oryan77" data-source="post: 4656680" data-attributes="member: 18701">I don't know if you guys are trying to be helpful by pointing out my flaws, or if you're just trying to belittle me. Either way, I'm well aware of what people might think are my "flaws". Expecting a DM to run a game your way is as much of being a control freak as you say I am being. I can understand why you'd think this about me. When I meet strangers interested in joining, I tell them up front what limitations there will be. But I have many more options than I have limitations. The OP didn't have the opportunity to interview me because she came in as a friend of a player. If we did interview each other, I probably wouldn't have even invited her to the group because I'd realize she would have a problem with my DMing style. Also, she may have realized beforehand that she wouldn't want to play in our campaign because of my "flaws" (I don't find them as flaws but I understand others might).Look, people can criticize a DM for wanting to run a campaign the way he wants to run it. You have every right not to like his way of DMing. But at the same time, I don't like DMing for players that need to be catered too and pampered as if they are doing me a favor by playing in our campaign. I don't like to DM high maintenance players. And believe me, there are plenty of them out there. I don't claim to be a perfect DM for everyone, but I try my best to be a good DM (DMing is a difficult thing to do well). It's not like I don't try to make the players happy. But if I'm not happy DMing, then I can't run a good game and then nobody will be happy playing D&D. I would rather not DM than be forced to DM in a way I don't like. I would never tell a DM that he should be running his campaign a certain way or he should give me whatever I want. I would be grateful that he's DMing me and doing that extra work for my entertainment. If I didn't want to play in a game like his, I simply wouldn't play. I'm not going to post a thread on Enworld and badmouth him cause I didn't get my way.I like my style, I like my players, I think the rest of them like me, and I know our game isn't for everyone. I'm confused. What makes you think that I wasn't trying to help her make her history work and keep the same basic story she was trying to convey? Wanting to change an NPC from a god to something less divine is considered a complete rewrite of a background?Yes that's exactly the reason. I don't mind contact with a powerful NPC or even a proxy of a deity. But none of the other players have as epic of a history as having direct contact with a deity. It just seemed too extreme for the campaign & their level.She was very argumentative even the first day I met her and we played together. We let her know that we try not to argue at the table and she did a great job adapting to that. It seemed like she had to do a lot of adapting though; which frustrated her & led to the downfall <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Naw, I don't think that was her intention. She was simply just trying to create an interesting history and probably thought it would be unique.Oh and thanks for the XP everyone. I've been out of the Enworld loop for months, so I'm not really sure what it means though <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification