Your game or theirs?

[Michael Silverbane]

Currently, I am running a game that is comprised primarily of house rules. That is, I'm using a published system (star wars sage edition) as the baseline for a game that I am developing myself.

Now, when I started the game up, I told the players, "I have a game that I want to run, but it is heavily modified from the system that you might be used to." and also, "the rules for this game are not entirely set, so things might change mid-campaign."

So far, my players have been very patient with me and quite accepting of the changes that I've made. There haven't been a whole lot of questions (other than the same types of questions that you would get from a professionally designed game) and there hasn't been any complaining. Part of this is, I'm sure, how I've gone about handling these changes...

Whenever I change a rule, I write it up and post it to my game's wiki. Then I send out an email summarizing the extent of the changes, and what affects I think it will have, and who it is going to affect the most. Anybody who feels the urge to do so can then make changes to their character, in order to take advantage of these rules, or to reduce the extent to which these rules will affect them.

Whenever a problem comes up in play, we make a note of it, but stick with the current rule. After the session, I note the problem again on the game's wiki, and then start making changes to the rule to fix the perceived problem (which goes back to the process above).

There may come a point at which my players say, "enough is enough." But I think that as long as I keep my players in mind while I'm working out the rules, and so long as the channels of communication remain open, that will be a long way off.

 

[catsclaw227]

However, I'm introducing a few custom rules again as they are only now getting to a level where they can utilise certain feats and choices I've put into the game. The problem is, again, I'm getting questioned and criticised over the rules I'm creating.

I am still waiting to see what these house rules are, so that I can put the situation in context. I am sure that letting us know the specifics would help us along.

Were the rules ones that may have affected the players PC? Was it something that would have been important to know at character creation time?

 

[S'mon]

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

No player says that. And yes, of course a few do take that approach in practice, and yes I do kick them out. But being an obnoxious player is not the same as being an authoritarian GM.

Edit: As I tried to say to Kzach earlier, the more authoritarian - Gygaxian - you are as GM, the more care needs to be taken with stuff like house rules. If you're the dictator, you bear sole responsibility. Benevolent dictatorship is certainly a valid approach, and may be by far the best approach for you, but with great power comes great responsibility.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If it is your way or no game, why did you allow players to quibble with your rulings?
It seems to me that since you did not back up your original statements there is now, no way to regain the authority you once claimed.

Which I think was your question. Now, your only choice is to continue as is or stop.

As for your DM style, that really depends. My view is that at the table the DM rulings are final. That said, if the players find the DM unresonable or worse inconsistient then that DM will shortly, have no players. So there has to be some give and take.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What an odd post.

First, if it were truly binary, I'd say it's the DM's game. The DM puts in the most work, the DM gets final word on his game.

Of course, the DM may end up playing with himself. He also may end up with no players.

As a DM, I have a play-style and I don't hide that play-style from players. I like a certain tone in an RPG and I don't hide the tone I want from players. I am something of a control freak (which is why I DM in the first place), and I don't hide that from players.

A player who can't abide by any of those facets of my DMing isn't welcome in my game. I've had players leave, and I've kicked players out, so it really does make a difference, but in eight years of continuous DMing (and many more off and on before that), I've never been short of players.

The real key is "disclosure." I think it's fair that a DM gets much more of a say in how a game goes, but only to the extent that the players have access to the information they need to determine if the DM's game makes the DM's terms worthwhile.

Among other things, that means sharing house-rules ahead of time. (It also means being willing to listen to criticism. I am the best game designer in my group, but I'm not a power-gamer. If I make a house-rule, the power-gamers in our circle of gamers definitely get a look early in the process. And everyone gets a look before the rule goes live, because simply by virtue of numbers, players may see something I missed.)

If I'm running a core-only game, I disclose that. If I intend to respond to AC-pumping by attack-bonus-pumping the monsters, I disclose that. I habitually rule against power-gaming players, when the decision could reasonably go either way, and I disclose that.

It's the DM's game. It's the players' absolute right not to play it.

 

[Mallus]

They all agreed to them and promptly ignored them during our sessions.

Did that surprise you?

However, I'm introducing a few custom rules again as they are only now getting to a level where they can utilise certain feats and choices I've put into the game. The problem is, again, I'm getting questioned and criticised over the rules I'm creating.

Then what do you gain by adding the custom rules?

 

[Umbran]

So what do you think? Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

I think you've got a false dichotomy here - the issue isn't digital, all-or-nothing. There is a middle ground.

I think your original conditions were not realistic. "You will accept everything and anything without question, in perpetuity," isn't terribly reasonable. They haven't seen all your rules in action. And GMs are people, not infallible. Mistakes and misjudgments happen and players should be allowed to point them out on occasion.

Of course, having players second guess every little detail is also unreasonable.

There's a middle ground, where players pick their battles wisely, questioning only the things that really matter, and where the DM is open to occasional correction or criticism. Exactly where the line sits is something that sometimes needs to be negotiated.

 

[Stalker0]

My take on it is that at the beginning of a campaign, anything the DM says goes.

If he says no elves...no elves. If he says this particularly feat has been nerfed to obscurity, then so be it. If that one class you've been dieing to play till the end of time is axed before the game even starts, well...look at making a different character.

The DM is working to make a game, and that is something that nondms just don't always get. Dming is work, its fun....but its also work. The tradeoff of that is that you get to make the kind of game you want to run.

Now once the game has started, I think a dm needs to be a little more reasonable about new houserules, especially if they affect a player's character. That means working with the player on the houserule, perhaps allowing some retraining or even a new character to compensate for the change, or ultimately deciding the houserule isn't so important that its worth altering a player's character.

That said, if the DM is adamant about the change, then the change gets made. Player's can say "well then...I don't want to play anymore", that's their right, and they have the right to DM their own games as well. But I'm always amazed at how quickly people jump to that conclusion on the boards. DND is still a niche hobby, its not like gaming groups are growing on trees. And if you find a DM that is halfway worth his salt, then as a player, I would learn to cope with his rules. I think you'll be better off for it.

 

[Ktulu]

Before our group ever creates characters, the DM has to bring up house-rules he wants to use. Everyone needs to agree, to some extent. If the house-rule is just "I don't like that wizards can cast magic missile at will", tuff noogies, that's balanced for the game. Our house-rules are more like "we will be using a low magic variant, so you won't be getting a lot of items, but you'll get a Magic boost at X levels" or "instead of the current action points, you can also use them to gain a +1d6 to a roll".

We don't play the my-way-or-highway style of gaming at our table, so it's not ever become an issue.

If it turns out that a house-rule is broken, we will remove or edit, but we try very hard to never add any house-rule mid campaign (honestly, we try to play as close to RAW as possible, to make it easiest for all to learn the game rules).

 

[Cadfan]

I currently DM a weekly game set in my homebrew world with custom rules. From the outset, I asked players that before I begin DM'ing, they needed to be happy with a few of my conditions.

Those conditions mainly required them to accept me and my DM'ing style as is, without complaint. The same went for custom rules and any rules changes I made, or any adjudications I made during play.

I was happy not to DM if they weren't happy with these conditions. They all agreed to them and promptly ignored them during our sessions.

As such, I lost interest in the game and only kept going because a friend wanted to keep playing. Two people have now left for greener pastures, but the remainder of us decided to start anew and get a couple of replacements.

This renewed my vigour and excitement and I set about putting effort back into the games. And I feel it has shown and everyone has enjoyed the games so far.

However, I'm introducing a few custom rules again as they are only now getting to a level where they can utilise certain feats and choices I've put into the game. The problem is, again, I'm getting questioned and criticised over the rules I'm creating.

One player in particular essentially expects to have input into what I create and how it gets implemented in the game. This is not how I like to do things. I'm not interested in discussion or changing things to suit the player. I'm very much a "My way or the highway," type of DM. And if players don't like that, I'm happy to step aside and become a player myself.

That isn't to say that I don't understand his desire to have input, just that I'm not really interested in having a debate about my rulings. It's tiresome and stressful and I haven't the emotional energy to defend my decisions for something that is supposed to be a game of fun.

So what do you think? Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

Playing and running RPGs is a social activity. You have exactly as much authority and power as your social circle allocates to you. And the consequences for trying to use authority will be purely social.

So...

If you tell them that its your way or the highway, and they quit, that's fine. And the outcome is your problem.

If you tell them that its your way or the highway, and they agree but then undermine you at the table, that's fine. And the outcome is your problem.

If you tell them that its your way or the highway, and they tell everyone in your social circle that your a huge jerk and a terrible DM, and everyone loses respect for you, that's fine. And the outcome is your problem.

And if you tell them that its your way or the highway, and they agree and you all have a good time, that's fine. And the outcome is your problem.

Look, we're way past etiquette here. This isn't about etiquette and it never was. Etiquette doesn't even begin to be involved in a situation where one friend tells a bunch of other friends that he has a list of ultimatums that must be complied with or else he's taking his basketball and going home.

And to the extent that you have the right to do this, its something the players also have the same right- there's no disparity in rights inherent in being a DM or a player. You're all just guys sitting around a table issuing ultimatums to their social equals. The only question is the ability to back up that ultimatum, and its generally easier to get new players than to get new DMs.

Social groups are organic entities. Your question is literally no different from "I want to go bowling, but my friends want to play pool. I am the only one who owns a car. Should I refuse to drive them if they don't agree to go bowling with me? I think I can get some different friends to go bowling." And the answer is the same. Work it out. No one else can help you with this.