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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

GM pitches an idea. For whatever reason, the group doesn’t go for it. The GM has three options: modify the pitch to be more appealing to the players, let someone else pitch, or make a new pitch (technically, I suppose the GM could kick out the existing group and make the same pitch to a new group, but that seems to be a bit extreme). The GM having to adjust is not the GM not being enthusiastic, nor is it the GM being forced to anything with respect to their players.

 

[billd91]

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.”

I think I'm also wondering what exactly this has to do with the OP's point - that a GM should be enthusiastic about the games they want to run. I think you're getting bogged down with the teacher/student aspect here.
One might expect the whole issue of enthusiasm toward the game would be even more powerful or effective in a situation in which everyone is there voluntarily as a leisure activity without the complicating motivations of compulsory education and the transactional aspects of a student taking the class for credit/the instructor teaching for pay. So I don't know why the issue of a teacher being in a privileged position is relevant.

As far as Bill wanting to run Star Wars as alternative - again, how is that relevant? I guess I would hope Bill is as enthusiastic about wanting to run Star Wars as the a GM taking the OP's advice would be enthusiastic about the game they're pitching.

Or are you trying to say that, by taking turn as a teacher, it's really Bill as a player being enthusiastic about playing a particular Jedi concept? Well, if the GM in this case can be enthusiastic about that too... then sure. But what if that GM isn't conversant in any of the Star Wars RPGs? Or doesn't particularly like Star Wars? Trying to let Bill drive the game choice as a player doesn't sound like it's going to work in those cases. Maybe Bill should step up and offer to run the game if they feel enthusiastic enough that it should be played...

 

[Lanefan]

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).

Perhaps worth noting that people can frequently butt heads, dig in their heels about things, and get stubborn with each other, and yet still be friends.

I say this because it's a dynamic I've run with for the majority of my life.

 

[Lanefan]

Not for me. I do not like playing in public because of the disruption that makes my ADD fire and I can't focus.

I can see that if playing in a game store or library or similar; but depending on your surroundings and-or who you know "on the inside" you could maybe find a public or quasi-public space such as a school or university classroom on the weekends where, while in theory it's public, you're highly unlikely to be disturbed or disrupted.

There's one building on the local campus here that every Sunday afternoon (all year round!) you can hear the sounds of people's RPG games echoing down the halls, and I'm fairly sure not all those games are bring run by the student gaming club.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

While I very much agree with this in theory and in practice try to take this appoach, in fairness - and for a variety of possible reasons - not everyone has that big of a gaming community to draw from; and if they want to play in-person they're kinda stuck with what they've got.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sure, in the classroom - the students have to be there and the teacher has to teach whatever the current curriculum says to teach.

But the students don't have to turn up to his D&D club, they're there by their own choice; nor is there any sort of curriculum or other external force telling him what campaign he has to run. Totally different dynamic.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

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.

You've changed the situation though.

It's not "Are you playing golf this weekend?" It's "I will ONLY play golf if you are." That's a demand, not a request.

"Are you going to the beach next week?" "I will ONLY go to the beach if you drive." That's a demand, not a request.

"Do you want to go for a walk later?" "I will ONLY walk if you walk." Is a demand.

Adding conditions for a single event is not really a demand. Adding a condition for your participation EVERY TIME, is a demand. I will only go to dinner with you if you pay. I will only play an RPG with you if you play THIS RPG and YOU must run it. These are all demands.

 

[SableWyvern]

You've changed the situation though.

It's not "Are you playing golf this weekend?" It's "I will ONLY play golf if you are." That's a demand, not a request.

"Are you going to the beach next week?" "I will ONLY go to the beach if you drive." That's a demand, not a request.

"Do you want to go for a walk later?" "I will ONLY walk if you walk." Is a demand.

Adding conditions for a single event is not really a demand. Adding a condition for your participation EVERY TIME, is a demand. I will only go to dinner with you if you pay. I will only play an RPG with you if you play THIS RPG and YOU must run it. These are all demands.

As an answer to "Are you playing golf this weekend?" "Only if you are" and "I will ONLY play golf if you are" are absolutely identical statements. The only difference is, in your version, you've confirmed that you're definitely talking about golf and placed emphasis on the word "only". Neither is inherently a demand.

In fact, those exact statements could even be used to mean, "I wasn't going to play, but I will if you want to," which is about as far from a demand as you can get.

But, if you insist on treating one as a demand, I'm not going to keep arguing the point. You do you.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

As an answer to "Are you playing golf this weekend?" "Only if you are" and "I will ONLY play golf if you are" are absolutely identical statements. The only difference is, in your version, you've confirmed that you're definitely talking about golf and placed emphasis on the word "only". Neither is inherently a demand.

In fact, those exact statements could even be used to mean, "I wasn't going to play, but I will if you want to," which is about as far from a demand as you can get.

But, if you insist on treating one as a demand, I'm not going to keep arguing the point. You do you.

All right. Let's phrase it the way a player who absolutely refuses to even try DMing would:

"I'll only play golf with you if you do all the scoring, carry my bags, and pay for the round."

Now, you can keep deliberately misinterpreting what I've said and stripping things out of context, but, yeah, we're done here. To me, a player who absolutely refuses to try DMing is a parasite who demands other people entertain them. They refuse to do any of the work. Refuse to even try to share the workload. The Permanent Player is a freeloader.

A: Would you like to have dinner with me?
B: Only if you buy all the food, prepare the meal by yourself, and clean up afterwards. I will only contribute a bit of light conversation. Anything else, and I'm out. I refuse to buy any of the ingredients. I will not help you at all with preparation or clean up. These are the sole conditions I will accept before I will eat with you.

 

[SableWyvern]

All right. Let's phrase it the way a player who absolutely refuses to even try DMing would:

"I'll only play golf with you if you do all the scoring, carry my bags, and pay for the round."

Now, you can keep deliberately misinterpreting what I've said and stripping things out of context, but, yeah, we're done here. To me, a player who absolutely refuses to try DMing is a parasite who demands other people entertain them. They refuse to do any of the work. Refuse to even try to share the workload. The Permanent Player is a freeloader.

A: Would you like to have dinner with me?
B: Only if you buy all the food, prepare the meal by yourself, and clean up afterwards. I will only contribute a bit of light conversation. Anything else, and I'm out. I refuse to buy any of the ingredients. I will not help you at all with preparation or clean up. These are the sole conditions I will accept before I will eat with you.

If you insist on treating this as a demand, I'm not going to keep arguing the point. You do you.