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

[kigmatzomat]

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.

I don't differentiate between "you run something they don't like" and "you run something you don't like." Why should the DM suffer any more than the player? IME, an unhappy DM is a bad DM which means the other players suffer as well.

I guess people assume that changing a setting is minor since it doesn't involve something as "personal" as a character but I tend to invest as much into my settings as my characters. More, probably. I know I write a heckuva a lot more.

Look, either the group finds another campaign that everyone likes (same DM, other DM, whatever) or someone suffers or someone doesn't play. I prefer the first option but sometimes it doesn't happen (if I shelled out the cash for WLD I wouldn't switch without a really good idea and if no one else DMs....) If the DM doesn't play, no one plays. If the DM suffers, everyone suffers.

Elephant might have been keeping too tight a rein on character development but he's a new DM. He's running the game the way I would advise any new DM to play (limit rules complexity, focus on gameplay and mastering the skills of a DM). The player really should have cut him some slack and provided feedback rather than ultimatums ("I generally dislike core games b/c I've been playing them for 20yrs. After a while you get bored with the same things. I'd really like to play a less vanilla character as soon as you are comfortable, maybe once you've got 2-3 levels of play under your belt.")

I disagree with tantrums, emotional blackmail, manipulations and taking the game hostage regardless of the source and I would not put up with it from player or DM.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Verisimilitude Über Alles!

When I'm running a character instead of running the game, it's because I want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's imagination. I enjoy the challenge of creating a character that is at home in the setting - I neither want nor expect the setting to morph to conform to my character.

Well put. If I wasn't recruiting players for my current campaign, I'd use this quote as my signature.

-Samir Asad

 

[JiffyPopTart]

ultimately what decided it for me was the thought that "here's this guy...he works for a living, got a wife and kid. My D&D game is HIS night out. I figure if he wants to drop what little fun-money he has on a shiny new book, he's probably looking forward to using it. So why the heck would I not let him use it?" And it wasn't a game breaker.

Shadowslayer for president!!!!

DS

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It can also play havoc with verisimilitude when a character doesn't fit the milieu.

It's the game master's call what's in and what's out - anyone who doesn't like that can give up a seat at the table or pick up the screen and run a game.

Perhaps your definition of COMPROMISE and mine differ.

DS

 

[The Shaman]

Perhaps your definition of COMPROMISE and mine differ.

No, I think the definition of compromise is understood well-enough - the kinds of compromises we're willing to make may be a bit different.

Then again, neither of us has played in the other's game, so who really knows?

 

[Barak]

Well, note too that (well, as far as I know), The Shaman's game is a PBP. That, to me, is a huge difference. If I hadn't liked the setting he was presenting, and the idea of running a character in said game.. No biggie. I wouldn't have applied, would have waited for a PBP that did interest me, and tried to get into that.

Now.. If someone in my RL group proposed to run something that truly didn't appeal to me (that's unlikely. I'm the only one who DMs regularly, and I pretty much can find something fun in any kind of game, but still), then I'm SOL. That's my -one- night out "with the guys". Do I want to "waste" it going to something I doesn't enjoy? Heck no.

 

[prosfilaes]

I don't differentiate between "you run something they don't like" and "you run something you don't like." Why should the DM suffer any more than the player? IME, an unhappy DM is a bad DM which means the other players suffer as well.

Frankly, I don't get to run the campaigns I want. Should I tell my players "forget Ptolus, we're playing Traveller?" Both sides have to have a flexibility here.

I disagree with tantrums, emotional blackmail, manipulations and taking the game hostage regardless of the source and I would not put up with it from player or DM.

I agree.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I have a feeling that having the DM call all the shots reduces the amount of player investment in the game. When you're limited in the amount of content you can create, always having to get the okay from someone else, it seems like that would throw up a barrier. (But then again, you always need the okay from the other people playing. Hmm.)

As a DM...

Sometimes I want more input from the players. For some campaigns, I have only a very loose 'feel' for the setting that I'm going to be running in, and I welcome (but don't require) input from my players about the specifics of Culture A or Region B.

Other times, I have a very specific idea of what sorts of things I want and don't want. In these instances, I expect my players to trust that I'm not trying to ruin their gaming experience by being overly restrictive or (sometimes) squashing their outlandish concepts.

On another note... Even when I do have a very spcific idea in mind for what I want to do, the players still get to decide everything that their characters do and say... That's kind of a lot.

Back to the OP. It sucks that this situation has gotten out of hand. I hope you have better future gaming luck.

Later
silver

 

[Felix]

Frankly, I don't get to run the campaigns I want. Should I tell my players "forget Ptolus, we're playing Traveller?"

Or you could say, "I really really really want to run a Traveller game; would anyone mind if we do that for a while?"

And if your players have your enjoyment in mind, they should agree, even if it's just a few sessions long and then back to Ptolus.

Now, changing settings as a matter of habit after two or three sessions does get annoying. But if you've been running Ptolus for a while a break might not be a bad thing.

 

[The Shaman]

Frankly, I don't get to run the campaigns I want.

That's unfathomable to me. Really, I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of running something that I don't want to play.

Should I tell my players "forget Ptolus, we're playing Traveller?"

How about telling the players that someone else needs to run a game set in the Ptolus setting and finding somone else with whom to play Traveller?

Both sides have to have a flexibility here.

Flexibility? Yes, some.

But running a game you don't enjoy isn't being "flexible." I'm not exactly sure what I'd call that.