"The aim is for the players to have fun"

[Omegaxicor]

I know the old DnD adage but what about the DM, if you are not enjoying the game (or if you foresee a player desired change in mechanics making the game less enjoyable for you) what is a DM to do?

I don't want to decide "I don't like it so it doesn't happen" because players get pissy when you do that but if I am not enjoying the game then it will affect the quests/enemies/story so I am conflicted...

Ideas/Suggestions/experience would be appreciated

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, "roll with the punches" doesn't help much. Compromise is probably the best solution.

I transitioned my game from 4e to 3e. My players were on average happy(about half prefer 3e, half prefer 4e, but most are more familiar with 3e), but I'm not.

You are the DM, you get the final say. If you and your players can't come to a compromise on the issue, then you need to make a decision, because at the end of the day, if the DM isn't happy with the game and the DM decides to end the game, there is no game.

EDIT: It's important to note, "players" includes the DM. You are a participant in the game just as much as they are. You may be in greater command than they are, but that doesn't mean you're not a player.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=95351]Omegaxicor[/MENTION]

Could you be any more vague?

So what's going on at your game that you're not enjoying yourself?

 

[jbear]

Hehehe, ditto on what Quickleaf said. Need a bit more info on the situation.

In short though, when I DM I think of myself as another player. If I'm not having fun then something is going to change. I had a player who was new to RPGs. She questioned everything I said, all the time. She was always making intimations that I was cheating and favouring the monsters etc etc etc. I would often allow her to look behind the screens so I could explain what I based my decisions on, hom my monster powers worked etc etc, but it didn't seem to help much. The aspersions continued. and so I had to have a talk with her and explain that her accusations were making playing unfun for me. I had to explain what my position and motivation was as DM, and that if I wasn't enjoying myself then I didn't want to play. And it stopped.

I know that is not your situation, but I think the bottom line is, if you are not enjoying yourself, it's time for 'that talk'.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To paraphrase wisdom from elsewhere, life's too short to GM games you don't like. At best, your players may be happy, but not for long because you can't keep hiding your displeasure indefinitely. Eventually, your dissatisfaction- whatever its source- will be revealed. And along the way, you may actually ruin the fun of others.

When I felt that I had kind of run dry in running pure D&D type fantasy, I went to my game library and got inspired to run other RPGs. Problem was, nobody else was interested. I didn't run anything or a long time, and others stepped up.

I eventually dusted off an old, successful campaign I had run in another city with another group using HERO. I convinced them to play, but they didn't want to try HERO, so we used M&M. It just didn't work out, for a variety of reasons. (On both sides if the screen.)

I haven't GMed anything since...

While my FRPG well has replenished somewhat, I wouldn't run what I'm thinking of in 4Ed- good system, fun to play, but I simply don't like it enough from the DM's perspective- and I'm having more fun as a player at this time.

(Hell- the way my last 2 attempts went, this group might not want me to run another game anyway.)

 

[Omegaxicor]

sorry, I was tired, Danny I'm sorry you don't DM anymore but if you don't enjoy it and neither do your players then maybe it is that your boredom/dissatisfaction shines through which is exactly what I am worried about.

The general problem is that character's lives are short...the players wanted to have checkpoints (well a single player) which I was unhappy about having but his second idea is that when his character dies there are other characters that are similar to his that can join the group, but I envision a moment where we start the campaign with James, Tom, Jane and Davis but five or six quests later the party is composed of Frank, Mark, Lidda and Redgar, I don't like a world where the player struggle through defeating great monsters only to find others have reached their level (level 5 is unachievable by civilians in my campaign) without defeating the same world ending threats.

I know that there are worlds that have multiple groups traversing the world and the players are not the focus of the world they are just 1/100000 people in the world but I don't like playing like that, I prefer when the party is changing the world through their actions (meeting a one-armed Lich who hates Humans because they stopped him from destroying a small village a few months ago, as well as taking his arm, would seem bizarre to me because I would expect the other Humans to come and deal with him)

I also don't want characters to be expendable, "oh, he's dead but there's a tavern around the corner we can get another Level 7 Cleric of Obad-Hai wielding a longbow and longsword combo wearing crystal full-plate armour but with different spells known" becomes a common thought (I am obviously making that up of the top of my head so it's a bad example but it is clear). They should try to revive the players rather than just "go buy another one in the corner shop"

sorry for the long post but it is difficult to explain in text

 

[Starfox]

Sounds like your issue is with PC survival. Just add some survival mechanism. Its quite easy to to do. Here are 2 options.

Hero points; PCs start with say 2 hero points, every even-numbered level they gain 1 more. 1 hero point survives one death

Harder-to-die rules: PCs die at neagtive hp = half normal hp

 

[Omegaxicor]

I can't recall the name of the system we use but it was originally from UA, you take damage until you are at 0, damage over 0 is divided by 5 (4 or less means nothing is added) and the result is added to a total save, which is 0+1/5 of Damage (player gets +4 from Endurance and +some other bonuses) Success by >10=Healthy, strenuous action causes you to fall to "stable" but you can act normally, Success by less than 10=Stable (standard action+Prone), Failure by less than 5=Unstable (unable to act), Failure by 5-10=Dying (Fortitude save worsens by HD), Failure by >10=Death (but if revived within Con rounds then no level or Con loss). The Diehard feat allows players to act fully during this period but each strenuous action adds a +1 to the save.

The damage is treated as a unique form of nonlethal-style damage, once a character is healed magically they still have the damage but they don't have to make saves until they drop to 0 again, every hour they heal their Con score in this damage, a full 8 hour rest cures it completely...a successful Heal check DC=Fort save can stop a character needing to make regular Fortitude saves until s/he takes damage or does something strenuous.

A character who is in the position of being "Stable" can be aided through some strenuous activities (such as climbing) by making their save and half of the other characters, so a DC=10 Climb check requires the Aider to roll DC=15 and the Wounded to roll DC=10, failure indicates damage even if the wounded character makes the save.

the system was chosen by me but the party altered it to suit us before the campaign started...

EDIT: Do you think then that the quests should be made easier for the party so death is less likely, even though many of those here said that death was part of the fun?? (I don't know if that is what you mean I am simply asking, misunderstanding seem common when reading text)

 

[Morrus]

It sounds like you're just running a more lethal game that you'd like to. Tone down the lethality, and a large portion of those problems will vanish like magic. You'll have your unique, world-changing heroic PCs who last through most of a campaign. The core D&D rules (in any edition after 1st) are pretty much designed to do that, so I'm guessing you've tweaked the rules into a shape you don't actually like.

 

[N'raac]

While I agree one possibility is that the game is too lethal, another is that the GM wants the players to view their characters as more than playing pieces that are easily replaced. The reason for challenge is often tension. A lot of that tension is lost when the players decide it's no big deal if a character or two dies, since we'll just pick up a new cog for the adventuring machine around the next corner. It's the same mentality that has PC's take foolish risks and flat out stupid actions because the character can always be replaced if it doesn't work out.

This can just as easily become a conflict between players (and the DM is also a player) who want verissimilitude in the characters and the world around them, and those who just want to play tactical combat and interchange new one dimensional characters for old ones when one of their "high risk high reward" tactics doesn't pan out. "What a coincidence - this is the fourth time our Level 7 Cleric of Obad-Hai wielding a longbow and longsword combo wearing crystal full-plate armour has fallen in battle this week, and there's a fifth one waiting for us at the Inn!" wears pretty thin for those who want some immersion in the game world. Do these guys get stocked in a vending machine?

I echo one of the early comments - if you're not having fun, something is wrong. A discussion with the rest of the group on your dissatisfaction is a lot better for everyone than the game shutting down because you lose any desire to keep running it.