Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 2893354" data-attributes="member: 9254">I don't differentiate between &quot;you run something they don't like&quot; and &quot;you run something you don't like.&quot;&nbsp; Why should the DM suffer any more than the player?&nbsp; &nbsp; IME, an unhappy DM is a bad DM which means the other players suffer as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess people assume that changing a setting is minor since it doesn't involve something as &quot;personal&quot; as a character but I tend to invest as much into my settings as my characters.&nbsp; More, probably.&nbsp; I know I write a heckuva a lot more.&nbsp; Look, either the group finds another campaign that everyone likes (same DM, other DM, whatever) or someone suffers or someone doesn't play.&nbsp; 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....)&nbsp; If the DM doesn't play, no one plays.&nbsp; If the DM suffers, everyone suffers.&nbsp; Elephant might have been keeping too tight a rein on character development but he's a new DM.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; The player really should have cut him some slack and provided feedback rather than ultimatums (&quot;I generally dislike core games b/c I've been playing them for 20yrs.&nbsp; After a while you get bored with the same things.&nbsp; 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.&quot;)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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 2893354, member: 9254"] I don't differentiate between "you run something [b]they[/b] don't like" and "you run something [b]you[/b] don't like." Why should the DM suffer any more than the player? IME, an unhappy DM is a [i]bad[/i] 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 [i]might[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification