Your game or theirs?

[Raven Crowking]

Does the "problem player" bit really matter to the OP, though?

Anyone, on either side of the screen, is absolutely entitled to set the conditions under which they are willing to play. It is true, however, that the conditions they initially want to set are usually "perfect" conditions, and there may be a great deal of room for compromise.

Setting conditions that you do not mean, though, is universally a bad thing.


RC

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You're ignoring that DMing is a whole different kettle of fish from playing, and there's no indication that Kzach is rude when he's a player.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. It doesn't matter what side of the screen the person is sitting on: you need to be willing to put in the same amount of effort trying to form, nurture, and value social relationships as you do trying to form, nurture, and value your game world or your character.

There are lots of gamers like that. Too many.

I realize I may be unfairly lumping Kzach into that group-- I have no frame of reference other than his posts in this thread; those posts have provided ample indication that he may be a problem. If he introduced himself to my gaming group in the style he's exhibited in this thread, I would have concerns.

As Kzach said, this is particularly true when playing with a variable group of people you don't know well.

And if he came to me and told me that he didn't have any long-term gaming buddies, after he just finished telling me he didn't have the time to be diplomatic to other players, the concern level increases. If Kzach invested more time in diplomacy, perhaps he wouldn't be game-hopping. A new group of folks you don't know well is not the time to set forth the conditions under which you will deign to grace them with your presence. He should be spending less time on game prep and more time on diplomacy. He has it exactly backwards.

I'm perfectly aware that I'm making gross generalizations; that's part of the skill set of being a good judge of character.

 

[Mercule]

Both. Everyone is there to have fun. It's a group activity. Everyone's fun is dependent upon the cooperation of everyone.

That said, the GM has certain responsibilities that require both the ability to make rules-calls without involvement from other players, and the ability to build from assumptions or within boundaries to form a coherent game. The former gives the GM the authority to arbitrate the rules and to not be called on the carpet for them. The latter give the GM the authority to set boundaries on things like character creation (all PCs must be part of the king's guard), genre specifics (no firearms), etc.

That doesn't mean players should just suck it up and accept whatever the GM does. If people aren't interested in playing noble knights, then the whole group needs to decide a more acceptable setting/baseline for the game. If the GM is making lousy calls that consistently put the players in unfun scenes, then it's fair to bring it up and let the GM know that the game needs to be loosened up a bit.

Regardless, the big thing is respect. The GM needs to respect that the players aren't there to sit in awe of his masterpiece or listen to his pronouncements. The player need to respect the fact that the GM is putting in an aweful lot of hard work for their amusement -- even if using a published module/setting and the RAW, the GM has a serious amount of data to track and decision-making.

I'll comment on house rules, though. I used to have tons of house rules. There have been multiple things about every edition that I thought could be done better. Most of the house rules I made, though, didn't really improve the fun to be had, especially by the players.

House rules will always be more intuitive to the person who make them. They also tend to be marginally documented. Most players (IME) don't read the PHB cover-to-cover. Even if you have the best laid out house-rule document, your players are unlikely to read it, or maybe even notice it. Even in the best case, you have an extra reference that is going to provide a potential for misunderstanding, especially if the rule is rarely used or only changes for certain circumstances. Spell points are easy to remember. Changing the protection afforded by non-magical, masterwork, metal armor is almost pointless. House rules that appear and/or disappear will frustrate even the most flexible player.

I've really started scaling back my house rules to just those that make the game noticibly easier or more fun to play. If I had my druthers, and was inclinded to run another 3.5 game, I'd make very few house rules, and I'd keep those to published alternatives (UA) that are close enough to what I'd do on my own (spell points and action points, really).

House rules aren't inherently evil. Chronic system tweaking, though, will kill most groups.

 

[Lance_Work]

Well, just from reading the OP's post, I would not be interested in playing any game with him. It sounds way too much like "well, if you don't play by my rules I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"

The OP admitted that he was primarily of the mind-set that it was "my way or the highway." I can think of only 2 reasons for that sort of an attitude: 1) he thinks he's better/smarter/wiser than his players; or 2) he has had lots of argument with his house rules and "style" in the past, and he's trying to forestall more of the same.

If its 1) I'm not interested in voluntarily being in a game with anyone like that.
If it's 2) I'm not interested in voluntarily being in a game with anyone like that, because there's obviously a problem with his house rules and style if other people have also argued over the same points.

Granted, there may be more that he hasn't told us. But from what he posted, if that's all there is, is really nothing more than a better worded "if you don't play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

As an earlier poster said, if you don't like other people's comments, why post here about it. Please re-examine the reasons for your "my way or the highway" mentality. A cooperative game is much more fun for everyone.

 

[Rechan]

I'm perfectly aware that I'm making gross generalizations; that's part of the skill set of being a good judge of character.

Also part of being on the internet.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I avoid house rules as much as I can. All changes are discussed beforehand, by e-mail.

I hate house rules with a passion.

Brad

 

[Greg K]

It's the DM's game in that he or she is in charge of the setting, houserules, adventure design, supplements used, and running the game.

It's the players game in that they play in it (and screw up the world once actual play begins!).

 

[Ahnehnois]

When I had a large group I' had fairly active message boards where I solicted feedback outside of the game, both its stylistic and mechanical aspects. As far as character creation I would let them run anything by me and I was fairly generous. I had extensive houserules and often took input on them.

But when the session starts, that's over.

 

[S'mon]

And if he came to me and told me that he didn't have any long-term gaming buddies, after he just finished telling me he didn't have the time to be diplomatic to other players, the concern level increases.

Dunno about Kzach, but my old gaming buddies are in a different country. Now I live in a metropolis where people move away every year or two, and gaming has to be fitted around family life with wife and child. Which means running a club game with a wide variety of players I don't know well, some of whom are cool, others less so.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Which means running a club game with a wide variety of players I don't know well, some of whom are cool, others less so.

Some of whom will introduce themselves by telling you it's their way or the highway...