When Players don't respect the DM's rules - Help!

[ragnar99]

Hey guys,

Well I am another player in Elephant's game and I thought I'd give my perspective. The player is in his mid-30's by the way.

I tried to do a little calming down of everyone and got this e-mail from the player. I might help to get a sense of what his opinion is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxx,

My perception of (Elephant) is that his enjoyment stems from his control. I don't need him to open things up, I just need some dialog and flexibility. If I say I'd like bring in a new character, and announce this ahead of time (which I did in an email to everyone), I don't need a control freak saying I can't because it interferes with his overarching storyline or his fear of losing control. It's WOTC, it's playtested, get over it. I don't need him jumping down my throat for interfering with his master plan because I didn't want to play a castrated kobold.....which if I had, our dwarf would have been dead BTW.

Just my 2 cents.

Later bro,

xxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well the oddest thing for me is that he starts this whole thing, and then basically says we disagree I'm not talking about it.

And for what its worth he basically got the PC the GM made ,said I'm not playing this you guys can do whatever, and left. I'm afraid the other players kind of pressured him into making peace with the player. Mostly just so we could get gaming.

Anyway let me know about any changes you make in the group man. Right now I definately will consider anything.

 

[ShadowRaven]

sounds to me like a few mistakes where made all the way 'round here. Pressureing Elephant to make peace so that everyone could get on with the game sounds like it might be what prompted Elephant to cave. Not that I'm saying that sort of thing was wrong. I mean, you guys came to play, to have fun. Ending the fight swiftly so that you could get back to the fun part probably was a good idea at the time.

Unfortunatley, from this side of the screen (computer not DM) it seems that [inserrt players name ->here<- ]didn't want the fight to end without him comeing out on top, getting what he wanted. It seems to me Elephant was willing to compromise to a degree. A degree I might add seemed more based on his skill as a DM then anything regarding power control, or anything he is being acussed of.

Now with Elephant being banished from the house there is no longer any advice to give him, besides dance with joy and relief. I just hope that the others in this gameing group, especially if you are a group of friends, rather then 'random encounters' as it where, is to stick together, and talk things through, then make a decision from there.

 

[Chimera]

Anyway, it's come to a head. The PP decided that I'm no longer welcome in his home. I'm not yet sure what the rest of the group is going to do about it.

I have to know.

Is this guy named Jesse?

 

[Elephant]

ShadowRaven: Yes, I was willing to compromise to a degree. For all my failings, I *am* willing to try and improve my flaws. I like to think that it's one of my better qualities!

Chimera: No, he's not named Jesse.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I see it this way: your group has decided to empower the DM, giving him the ability to say No.
.....
I don't see a problem coming up if a group doesn't give this power to the DM necessarily - I think the entire group could come to a consensus on what's cool for the game and what isn't. (The way I see it, that's what they've done anyway, by saying that the DM has that control.)

When the players have to generate encounters, maps, treasures, NPCs, ensure each player gets as close to equal time in the spotlight and whatnot, then group consensus can decide what appears in the game. Until then, they can vote with their feet much as I do in other games. This is not just my rule. Any player who does not accept the DMs ability to say "no" has been booted from every gaming group I've ever been part of, usually through their refusal to play anything BUT their non-standard character.

I am an on off-the-cuff GM who has a whole lot of plot/story/campaign/mojo/etc happen at the game table. My players have a lot of freedom as I hate railroads, even as a DM I find them boring. I run a character-centric campaign where the party does much of the driving, which is the very reason why I have to do so much at the gaming table. If there is something that doesn't jibe with my mental view of the world it throws off my rhythm and the game dies.

To use a band analogy, the DM is the drummer and chooses the beat. Everyone else can play around that beat with a wide degree of latitude but has to make certain accomodations to match the beat. Anyone who tries to play to a different beat sticks out like a sore thumb and more often than not destroys the music, much like a 5-minute bass solo.

 

[LostSoul]

When the players have to generate encounters, maps, treasures, NPCs, ensure each player gets as close to equal time in the spotlight and whatnot, then group consensus can decide what appears in the game. Until then, they can vote with their feet much as I do in other games. This is not just my rule. Any player who does not accept the DMs ability to say "no" has been booted from every gaming group I've ever been part of, usually through their refusal to play anything BUT their non-standard character.

I've never bought that argument. I consider all that DM "work" fun. If you don't like doing it, then just be a player or play a game that's low-prep.

I don't see that the extra stuff you get to do as a DM gives you more say in the game as a matter of fact. Some groups, sure, other groups, maybe not.

To use a band analogy, the DM is the drummer and chooses the beat. Everyone else can play around that beat with a wide degree of latitude but has to make certain accomodations to match the beat. Anyone who tries to play to a different beat sticks out like a sore thumb and more often than not destroys the music, much like a 5-minute bass solo.

How about this: The lead singer comes in and says, "Hey guys, I want to try something like this." Then he wails on his axe like a ninja. The other guys might say, "That's cool," and the drummer comes up with a killer beat to match.

All I'm saying is that the DM doesn't have to be the guy who decides everything.

 

[Crothian]

Update: It seems that things have come to a head. I've been trying to talk via email to the problem player to figure out a workable resolution, and he'd rather "just drop it."

Well, either drop it or progress it further. Personally, I'd drive him out of the group. Communication is important in gaming and he's not willing to do that.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've never bought that argument. I consider all that DM "work" fun. If you don't like doing it, then just be a player or play a game that's low-prep.

I don't see that the extra stuff you get to do as a DM gives you more say in the game as a matter of fact. Some groups, sure, other groups, maybe not.

I do enjoy that stuff typically. It's why I GM a lot. I get to do that stuff if the players enjoy my game. I have to do that stuff if there is going to be a game. But I don't do it well if I don't enjoy it. Matter of fact if I don't enjoy it, why am I doing it?

How about this: The lead singer comes in and says, "Hey guys, I want to try something like this." Then he wails on his axe like a ninja. The other guys might say, "That's cool," and the drummer comes up with a killer beat to match.

That can happen. One of my long running campaigns was conceived as a group idea, where several players/GMs were brain storming and we came up with an idea. BUT the core campaign idea had to be flagrant, blatant and unmistakeable so that these other people didn't have a significant advantage in the game. I've been helping another buddy with a sci-fi game he wants to run. I toss out technology/consequences and he picks and chooses what fits with the way he thinks. Which is another way to express "he says No to some things I suggest."

It has been my experience that 99% of the time a campaign starts when a GM comes up with a setting and has 3-4 story arcs in mind and then they broach the idea with players.
Which is closer to the singer coming in with a core playlist of songs that sets a style. For instance, Reggae. In that scenario either everyone can say, "yeah, I want to play reggae" or someone suggests an alternate style. If you went reggae to hip-hop it might be a reasonable translation. But maybe the singer sucks at hip-hop stylings. If the keyboardist insists on hiphop either the keyboardist leaves or they get a new lead singer.

Some choices really are orthogonal, especially when they are personal choices. The "problem player" felt his character was being held hostage but by the same token he was trying to hold Elephant's campaign hostage.

What game to run is just as personal a choice as what character to play. A player that can't enjoy playing a core character is just as valid but no more valid than a DM who can't enjoy running a non-core game. Neither is a bad person for this reason, it means there is an incompatible play style. Doesn't mean they are universally incompatible but that they are right now. I've got GM friends whose sci-fi games drive me nuts but that are great (IMO) fantasy GMs. Same way some players like my D&D games but not my Mage games. Doesn't make us bad DMs and/or players, just incompatible in some regards.


Saying "Hey, I'm running a core D&D game for five other players this saturday, would you like to play too?" is really no different from someone saying "Hey, the six of us are going for Indian saturday night, do you want to come too?" There are 3 socially acceptable answers:
"Never had it but I'll give it a try."
"Mmmm, Indian/core!"
"Naww, I'm not partial to Indian/core. Call me next time, though."

It is, and should be, socially unacceptable to say "I don't like Indian/Core! The rest of you should change your plans to fit me! If you don't you aren't my friend!" Anyone who is willing to say that has already demonstrated that they are NOT your friend.

 

[prosfilaes]

It is, and should be, socially unacceptable to say "I don't like Indian/Core! The rest of you should change your plans to fit me! If you don't you aren't my friend!" Anyone who is willing to say that has already demonstrated that they are NOT your friend.

I think it's more complex than that in some cases. My group has played on Saturday nights for years, and for the last few years, most of them have just been playing the one game, and the others have been playing just the one game seriously. If you run something they absolutely don't like, they either spend a year playing a game they don't like, or they abandon a social event they've been included in for years which may be their only opportunity to see the friends frequently.

 

[AegisKelt]

Using a kobold with abilities from Races of the Dragon.....hmmmm, wasn't trying to make a PUN PUN clone was he?