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

[Xenolith234]

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 ...

See, my hard line post-COVID is that I won’t run/play online because it’s not the same for me. That’s sorta an ultimatum but also just my preference - not saying anything about the people who do.

My wife says that I’ll have a harder time getting a group together because of that preference, but it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on.

It’s not ultimately much different than a GM not wanting to play in an everything-goes 5e game with all the classes and races available in all sourcebooks.

 

[GrimCo]

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.

It's always an option. I play pretty much only with friends. If whole group wants to play WoD and one wants to play only 5e, guess what. That one can skip that campaign. Same as with any group activity with friends. If we all wanna go out rafting for a weekend and one friend only wants board game day, guess what, we go rafting. You can still be friends and not participate in something rest of the group really wants to do.

2. The group is small. Excluding that player means that no one plays.

Minimum is usually 2, one player and one DM. So, unless one excluded is only one willing to DM, you can play.

3. The group plays at that person's home. Playing at other locations is not an option.

That one is legit. But if group of 3-5 adults cant find alternative location to play game, imho, they have bigger problem.

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.

Not really. At least not if we are talking about mature adult group of friends who love and respect each other.

 

[bsss]

Simply put, running D&D 5e because everyone likes it is better than sitting alone rereading your CoC books over and over ...

Is it, though?

Like, yes, I'm just making a joke post there (though honestly...), but if the person really doesn't want to run 5e, that's cool, they have other ways to engage with the hobby if they enjoy them more. I agree with the "tough guy" point but maybe sometimes just noping out is the right thing for someone.

 

[Remathilis]

See, my hard line post-COVID is that I won’t run/play online because it’s not the same for me. That’s sorta an ultimatum but also just my preference - not saying anything about the people who do.

My wife says that I’ll have a harder time getting a group together because of that preference, but it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on.

It’s not ultimately much different than a GM not wanting to play in an everything-goes 5e game with all the classes and races available in all sourcebooks.

Not for me. I do not like playing in public because of the disruption that makes my ADD fire and I can't focus. A similar problem happens when I run online; I'm too focused on the technical aspects to focus on the game. So both of those setups actually make me a worse DM and player. That's not true if someone is playing a tabaxi blood hunter. I am not so hyperfixated on the character that I cannot focus on the game around them. It's not just aesthetic preference, its literally removing impediments to my ability to game.

 

[TwoSix]

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 ...

For sure. I have a player who hosts several of my tables, but he would also never pull something like "We must play this game". Our groups always manage to come to a consensus that satisfies everyone, even if the choice isn't everyone's first choice.

Again, I see a big difference between "not game X" and "must play game X". The former is fine, the latter is objectionable.

I'm also in the position where after 35 years of gaming, I'm pretty comfortable with what I've done and the experiences I've had. There are always new things I'd like to try, but I'm also happy to walk away from TTRPGs as a hobby if I don't have something close to an ideal situation.

 

[billd91]

It's always an option. I play pretty much only with friends. If whole group wants to play WoD and one wants to play only 5e, guess what. That one can skip that campaign. Same as with any group activity with friends. If we all wanna go out rafting for a weekend and one friend only wants board game day, guess what, we go rafting. You can still be friends and not participate in something rest of the group really wants to do.

This isn't really the answer to the point that you think it is. It's just a "nuh-uh, that situation never happens" to the obstacle laid out that the other players won't exclude the D&D5-guy even if they want to play Vampire. And I think this is a pretty common situation - in fact, it's often brought up here on the boards that people will put friendship over the specific game quite often. Every time someone suggests that a player can "just sit this one out", even if the poster is the one in the place of being willing to sit the game out, there are multiple pushback posts that people value the friendship over the specifics of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

This isn't really the answer to the point that you think it is. It's just a "nuh-uh, that situation never happens" to the obstacle laid out that the other players won't exclude the D&D5-guy even if they want to play Vampire. And I think this is a pretty common situation - in fact, it's often brought up here on the boards that people will put friendship over the specific game quite often. Every time someone suggests that a player can "just sit this one out", even if the poster is the one in the place of being willing to sit the game out, there are multiple pushback posts that people value the friendship over the specifics of the game.

I mean, if the group decides to facilitate the "5e only" guy in the interests of group harmony, that's of course their right to do.

But it's also fair to evaluate that situation and identify the inflexible "5e only" guy as the bad actor in that situation. It's fine to have preferences, it's not cool to let your preferences hinder other people's enjoyment.

Like, as an anecdote, I'm mostly over 5e, but I'm not letting my cooling of enthusiasm hinder the 5e tables I'm still at. That would be a jerk move.

 

[Emerikol]

Look, I know this is going to a somewhat controversial take....

I could not agree more. Restaurants that make great products for some reasonably sized group go on to make fortunes. Those that try to please everybody please no one.

I don't think it is that controversial a take.

 

[Emerikol]

Just to add. I think DMs should have more players than they have in a group at any one time. They should strive to have ten or fifteen people who will play sometimes. So a lot of my thinking goes with that thinking. I offer a game and then people join it or don't join it. Obviously if no one likes my idea then I have to reconsider the idea. In my style of play, the work of the DM is too great to not have a lot of fun. Just a modicum of fun is not sufficient. And yes I am wedded to my style of play because that is where I derive the most fun. Since I only play what I am really into, I believe I offer a great game. I have not lacked for players when I ran games.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What’s that got to do with my OP?

A teacher as an adult is in a privileged position with respect to their students. I’m glad that you can teach material that you personally are enthusiastic about, but crucially, in an academic environment, whether your students are enthusiastic about the material or whether they would like to learn something else is irrelevant.

Say, for the sake of argument that you arrive in class on the first day of the semester jazzed to teach about the Western theater of the American Civil War. I guarantee that no student will stop you to say “Look, we’ve really enjoyed the past three years of military history, but we all agreed that it was Bill’s turn to teach this semester. He’s really excited about Star Wars, and I, for one, have a cool concept for a Jedi Knight that is weak in the force.”