Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ggroy" data-source="post: 5201883" data-attributes="member: 83805">For me it would be highly dependent on the particular group.  There generally tends to be two group types:"Type 1" - If a group was formed from me personally recruiting the other players, usually I tend to be a lot less of a rat bastard DM.  The act of me having to recruit other players, generally does not put me in a position to bargain with the players as easily, as to how the game is conducted."Type 2" - In contrast, if I was asked to DM a game by a group of players, I may have greater leeway in bargaining with the players, as to how the game is conducted.The vast majority of groups I've played with over the years which at some point abruptly fell apart, were almost always the "type 1" groups.  (Sometimes I was the DM.  Other times I was a player).  Frequently the DM of a "type 1" group was doing stuff the recruited players did not agree with, for which particular players abruptly walked out from the game and didn't come back.  In other cases, sometimes the DM abruptly quit when the players didn't fit in with the DM's expectations.The times I was recruited by a group of players to take up the DM chair (ie. "type 2" group), I had significantly more leeway as to how the game was conducted.  I told the players what my DM'ing style was like, and the intricate details of how I conducted the game.  This left very little room for any misunderstandings.  They knew what they were getting into.  They were to take it or leave it.  (If we didn't come to an agreement, we parted ways without ever playing a single session).</blockquote>

Verification