D&D General The Virtues of Prioritizing What You Like, as a DM

[Toe Knee Nose]

I genuinely don't see any other reason not to play if one player is out.

There are a number of reasons:

1. The group wants to play with their friends. That player is a friend. Choosing to exclude that player from play is not an option.
2. The group is small. Excluding that player means that no one plays.
3. The group plays at that person's home. Playing at other locations is not an option.

That's just off the top of my head. There are all sorts of reasons that a player saying, "I don't want to play that" means that the group doesn't play that.

 

[Belen]

If you've never experienced or heard of that kind of social pressure before, in 35 years of gaming, I am glad for you. But when you're the GM of the group, and everyone wants to play dnd5e, yes there's absolutely pressure to keep running what everyone wants to play, even if you want to try something else. You're caught between your desire to run a different game, and wanting to run games for this group that you enjoy running for.

I handle this type of burnout by just not running a game. I used to feel compelled to make people happy even if I was miserable. If I know that I am not going to have fun or that I am burned out on a system, then I am taking a break.

 

[TwoSix]

There are a number of reasons:

1. The group wants to play with their friends. That player is a friend. Choosing to exclude that player from play is not an option.
2. The group is small. Excluding that player means that no one plays.
3. The group plays at that person's home. Playing at other locations is not an option.

That's just off the top of my head. There are all sorts of reasons that a player saying, "I don't want to play that" means that the group doesn't play that.

I don't think it's a problem if they don't want to GM. It does become a problem if they're using their position to force a particular game or play style on the rest of the group.

If a member of my play group said "It's my house we play at, so we're going to play 5e because it's my house" with actual sincerity, then I'm going to leave the group. That's not how friends treat each other, and I have no interest in playing with people who aren't friends (or at the very least friend-adjacent).

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

It's why I defend people who don't want to GM

Yeah, I no longer do.

To me, people who refuse to DM but want to play all the time are freeloaders who want someone else to carry all the work so they can swan in, wait for the DM to roll up the plot wagon and play. I'm getting very, very tired of always being the one who has to do all the work all the time and the only time I can actually get out from behind the screen is if I just absolutely refuse to run a game.

I miss the days when the groups I played in used to fight for the chance to be behind the screen. When we had three or four campaigns running concurrently because everyone wanted a go behind the screen. I'll admit, it wasn't until I had played for many years - by the time I hit uni actually, where I had ever met a "forever player". The idea of a group having one GM/DM who ran games for the group over and over and over again was completely outside my experience.

I've since learned that my formative gaming years were the outlier. It's a really strange notion to me that there are all these players out there who only want to play and never want to run.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

If a member of my play group said "It's my house we play at, so we're going to play 5e because it's my house" with actual sincerity, then I'm going to leave the group. That's not how friends treat each other, and I have no interest in playing with people who aren't friends (or at the very least friend-adjacent).

A: I am going to run Game X
B: I'm not interested in playing Game X, so, I'll bow out.
A: But, we game at your house... if you bow out then none of us can play.
B: Well, according to the collected wisdom at En World, I should never have to compromise, so, I don't want to play Game X. If you're running Game X, I'm not interested in playing.
A: Well... I guess we're going to play Game Y then.

 

[Retreater]

I started this thread after reading @Retreater complaining about all the compromises they made to satisfy player demands, resulting in a game they were miserable running. I don’t think that’s a good approach to building a campaign, and the result, a failed campaign, was predictable. Running a campaign is significant work. If you’re not enjoying it, it won’t go well.

Yeah, I can understand the desire to pursue an ideal game. Here are some of the challenges I face that lead to compromises that can sometimes add to misery.

1) I live in a small town in the Bible Belt. The pool of potential players for IRL games is small.
2) I have players who have diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders that inhibit effective communication and lead to obsessive behavior. And no, I can't just kick these people out of the group.
3) Yes, I play additional games online to try to find systems and players more akin to my style. However, I'm finding it hard to stay engaged online due to general computer fatigue, personalities of the players, and the systems they choose.
4) I have the blessing and curse of following the RPG hobby. There are many games I want to try and have collected over the years, ones that are really novel, creative, and interesting. It's hard for me to be okay with running the 12th year of D&D 5e, or to play a multi-year Pathfinder 2E campaign.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ah, now I understand. We're just talking past each other because for you, it's only a demand if someone explicitly states that it's a demand. To me, "I will only play if you run the game" is a demand. We're simply no longer communicating.

So, if someone asks me, "Are you playing golf this weekend?" and I answer, "Only if you are," I'm demanding that they play golf?

If someone says, "Are you going to the beach next week," and I answer, "Only if I can find someone else to drive" am I demanding that someone drive me?

If someone says, "Do you want to go for a walk later," and I say, "Only if it's sunny," am I demanding that the rain to stop?

Saying that you will only do something if certain conditions are met is not inherently a demand that the conditions be met. It's simply stating that, should the conditions not be met, you won't do that thing.

 

[SableWyvern]

A: I am going to run Game X
B: I'm not interested in playing Game X, so, I'll bow out.
A: But, we game at your house... if you bow out then none of us can play.
B: Well, according to the collected wisdom at En World, I should never have to compromise, so, I don't want to play Game X. If you're running Game X, I'm not interested in playing.
A: Well... I guess we're going to play Game Y then.

So B not only has to play a game they don't want to, but they have to host it as well? And if they're not happy with that, you will accuse them of making unreasonable demands? You really truly have that about as backwards as it's possible to get.

But, you're probably right when you said we're talking past each other. If you really believe it's OK to pressure someone into hosting the game you want but they don't, there's probably too big a gulf between us for any common ground to be found.

 

[TwoSix]

A: I am going to run Game X
B: I'm not interested in playing Game X, so, I'll bow out.
A: But, we game at your house... if you bow out then none of us can play.
B: Well, according to the collected wisdom at En World, I should never have to compromise, so, I don't want to play Game X. If you're running Game X, I'm not interested in playing.
A: Well... I guess we're going to play Game Y then.

I don't have a problem with that. There are plenty of games I like that I know don't appeal to certain players, so I don't offer to run them for that table.

Saying "I don't want to play X" versus "We must play X" are two very different things to me.

As I've been saying on here for years, don't get overly invested in a particular game (game table, not system, to be clear) until you have a quorum of players who buy-in.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think it's a problem if they don't want to GM. It does become a problem if they're using their position to force a particular game or play style on the rest of the group.

If a member of my play group said "It's my house we play at, so we're going to play 5e because it's my house" with actual sincerity, then I'm going to leave the group. That's not how friends treat each other, and I have no interest in playing with people who aren't friends (or at the very least friend-adjacent).

I currently run my game at a friend's house because I am unable to run in my own space and have zero interest in running in a public place or via Zoom online. So if said friend said he was not interested in playing in a particular game or campaign, the group pretty much has no where else to play. Thus I do find myself in a position where I either play something that would keep him in the group OR I play in a place I do not enjoy (like the loud and crowded public game store) or I don't play. In a choice between the three, I'm more willing to sacrifice a game option that keeps him on board than I am to sacrifice my comfort and/or ability to play.

Everyone is a tough guy on the Internet who stakes out the "my way or highway" stance when responding to hypotheticals, but it's really different when it's your lived experience. Simply put, running D&D 5e because everyone likes it is better than sitting alone rereading your CoC books over and over ...