Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 7656620" data-attributes="member: 1288">Yeah, it really is &quot;anything goes.&quot;Sure, different people have different lines. But that doesn't change any of what I'm saying.Players W, X, Y, and Z are playing in a game run by Player A. Player A says &quot;This is based on the DCU, but with major changes.&quot; All the other players agree.Seven games in, we discover there's no Green Lantern Corps in this game. And we discover that that's a major problem for X, because he's always considered that a central point of the DCU.X has two options. He can grit his teeth and go with it, because he trusts A to deliver a good campaign. Or he can politely bow out of the campaign.What he does not have the right to do, assuming he's a halfway mature adult, is demand A change the setting, or to sulk about it.Sure, the DM has to know his players, and the players have to know the DM. But that goes back to what I said about &quot;minimum trust.&quot; Unless it's a brand new group that I'm just starting to get to know, I always take into account what I believe my players will enjoy when designing a new campaign. AFAIAC, that's such a basic part of the process that it doesn't even warrant being called out. It kinda goes without saying, I think, that a DM who doesn't consider his friends' preferences when designing a campaign isn't going to have players very long.I don't pretend to be perfect. I can screw up a mechanic or a plot point or a setting detail, and if I do, I have no problem with my players pointing it out. But once they've done so, and I've made the call--one way or the other--I expect them to go along with it. Because that's the implicit promise they made me when they agreed to be in a game I was running, just as &quot;I will do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience&quot; was an implicit promise I made when I agreed to run.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 7656620, member: 1288"] Yeah, it really [I]is[/I] "anything goes." Sure, different people have different lines. But that doesn't change any of what I'm saying. Players W, X, Y, and Z are playing in a game run by Player A. Player A says "This is based on the DCU, but with major changes." All the other players agree. Seven games in, we discover there's no Green Lantern Corps in this game. And we discover that that's a major problem for X, because he's always considered that a central point of the DCU. X has two options. He can grit his teeth and go with it, because he trusts A to deliver a good campaign. Or he can politely bow out of the campaign. What he does [I]not[/I] have the right to do, assuming he's a halfway mature adult, is demand A change the setting, or to sulk about it. Sure, the DM has to know his players, and the players have to know the DM. But that goes back to what I said about "minimum trust." Unless it's a brand new group that I'm just starting to get to know, I [I]always[/I] take into account what I believe my players will enjoy when designing a new campaign. AFAIAC, that's such a basic part of the process that it doesn't even warrant being called out. It kinda goes without saying, I think, that a DM who doesn't consider his friends' preferences when designing a campaign isn't going to have players very long. I don't pretend to be perfect. I can screw up a mechanic or a plot point or a setting detail, and if I do, I have no problem with my players pointing it out. But once they've done so, and I've made the call--one way or the other--I expect them to go along with it. Because that's the implicit promise they made me when they agreed to be in a game I was running, just as "I will do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience" was an implicit promise I made when I agreed to run. [/QUOTE]

Verification