Your game or theirs?

[CharlesRyan]

I think the OP should take a look at his stance from the players' side of the screen.

I gather that this isn't a group of life-long gaming buddies, but rather a group of players who are relatively new to each other. So you're in such a group, and someone says "I'm willing to run a game, and I have a pretty cool campaign idea, but it's my way or the highway. What I say goes without question; if you don't like that, I'm perfectly happy not to DM."

Would you agree to that? I might, but only with an "I'll give it a try, but I'm outta here if and when things go south" sorta attitude.

So the campaign starts up, and the players are generally having a good time, but are chafing with some of the OP's rulings. Now they're in a position where they have to either A) live with rulings that rub them wrong; B) quit a game they may otherwise be enjoying; or C) test the "my way or the highway" rule by making their concerns known. (Concerns which, no matter how well researched the house rules are, may still be perfectly valid.)

What would you do?

OP, are you seriously surprised that some of them went for option C? (And others, apparently, for option B?)

And where's the benefit in all this inflexibility? Are your house rules and DMing style really making the game so much fun (for them and for you) that they're worth sticking with even if the group falls apart? It seems like your players are a little conflicted on that one.

Put another way, is your way really better than the highway?

 

[Halivar]

As a player, I give the DM the benefit of the doubt. That means that entrust him with the authority to be the final arbiter of all things in the game. This is the DM's right. It is also my privilege, if the DM abuses this trust, to start finding other things to do on game night... like starting my own game. It's happened before. As a player, I refuse to be disrespected by a DM who abuses the wide latitude I give him (a thankfully rare occurance; I usually find good DM's and stick with them).

As a DM, I expect to be able to make rulings at the table with final authority. I also expect to receive feedback. My first job as a DM is not to tell a story. As a DM, my first duty is to serve the fun of the group (the "group" being everyone at the table; myself included). Narrative and combat are the means to this end. A good DM listens to his players, and takes their honest criticisms to heart.

 

[Set]

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?
[SNIP]
All of this takes a substantial amount of time, effort and energy.

Somewhere between the first sentence and the second sentence, you'll find the problem. You are spending all of this time and energy changing stuff to suit your tastes, and then saying you have none at all to see what your friends would enjoy.

If I invite a bunch of friends over for dinner, I'm not going to go out of my way to create a really magnificent dish that takes a lot of hard work *that I'm pretty sure some of them won't like.*

I'll at least check to see if anyone is diabetic or a vegetarian or Jewish before heaping the maple-frosted candied ham on their plate...

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D is a game. More than that, D&D is a game that requires a great deal of interaction with other people. No one is forced to play in a game, thus any authority the DM has must come from the players.

Dungeon master is not a military rank that commands respect from the lower ranks. It is a position that exists only with the mandate from the rest of the group. Accepted authority is gained with trust which takes time. If the players cannot trust the DM then the DM really has no game.

To the OP: Start building that trust. Run some games with the standard rules and and use your judgement to make good rulings where there are no rules present. Once your players trust you to DM a good game then you might get to run a game for friends instead of players.

 

[Scribble]

I'm one of those people that likes to compromise so that everyone has fun I guess. But I'm that way with everything I do with my friends.

When we're playing the game, as a DM I generally assume the role of ref... when I make a call, it stands (even if wrong.) I don't mind someone pointing out a mistake if they know it's truly a mistake, but I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate at the table... because that gets in the way of actually playing.

In trhe end though, we're all friends... so we do tend to argue about stuff at times. Thats what friends do.

 

[RodneyThompson]

The best ruling I have found I borrowed from Piratecat:

No arguing with the DM at the table.

But you owe it to them to hear them out between sessions.

That's pretty much my standing table rules. I did say that if the players thought I'd made a mistake, they could point it out if they could provide the page number of the rule I broke, so we could go to the text and head it off at the pass. If it wasn't immediately found in the book, the game continues on.

I do think it's important to talk to your players about your rulings. I actually really like doing post-session discussions of what worked, what didn't, what was mechanically questionable, etc. because it helps improve my skills as a DM.

With all due respect to the OP, I would not play in a game with such draconian rules on player-DM interaction. I think you're right to want to avoid endless hours of debate, and that's where you, as DM, need to be able to judge when a discussion has gone on long enough. However, I don't see anything wrong with having a fifteen minute discussion about a ruling outside of a gaming session. If you can't must the effort and energy to defend your own rulings, I might suggest not using any house rules at all, then. It would probably be easier on you as DM to run things as-written.

 

[Spatula]

This reminds me of this, but to a much larger degree:

That's a damn good essay on DM and player expectations. They should have stuck that in the DMG.

 

[Dausuul]

Maybe if I'm with this same group for another year or two we can all be happy-happy-joy-joy buddies who sing kumbuya and toast marshmallows together, but until then if there isn't a clear leader, the game devolves into twenty minute rounds as we argue over minutia.

Gee, playing in your game must be fun.

How often are you introducing new rules, anyway? It doesn't take long to hear the players out, consider their input, and accept, reject, or modify their suggestions - unless you're introducing new rules every session, in which case you ought to consider either making fewer changes or switching to a different system.

Now, if you've given the players a fair hearing, taken their thoughts into account, and made your final ruling, and they're continuing to complain and criticize - well, then, that's another issue. Players certainly need to respect the DM's authority and accept a final ruling. But they're not out of bounds to want the DM to hear them out first.

When on-the-fly rulings have to be made in play, the players should of course hold all criticism and debate until the session, or at least the combat, is over. But the key word there is rulings, as in, decisions about the application of an existing rule in a specific situation. In the middle of combat is emphatically NOT the place to introduce major new house-rules.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Indeed!

My first thoughts is the OP is about to close some rules abuses before they can crop up mid game. This is upsetting the player because they were planning on abusing said rules issue.

Like a player of 6th level cleric whining because the DM has finally realized the problems of Divine Power/Righteous Might and is doing something about it immediatly.

Was it something that would have been important to know at character creation time?

On this i would not have much sympathy myself. Whether I am playing a character or Running a game, long term character planning is something i actively dislike.

 

[catsclaw227]

On this i would not have much sympathy myself. Whether I am playing a character or Running a game, long term character planning is something i actively dislike.

I am with you on this one. I hate it when the players tell me how awesome their PC will be at 18th level because they have their whole progression planned.

Putting it in 4e context, ideally, I want the characters (Paragon) path and (Epic) destiny to come out of the campaign story. Not some build that was min/maxed from the book or on some CharOp forum.

I often say to the players, when they do this: "It's awesome that you have some plans for your PC, but keep in mind, there might be some cool stuff that comes along in during the campaign that will might make you rethink your characters life. Stay openminded to some relevant paragon paths or epic destinies that might open up while we are playing."

EDIT: I don't mind if they are thinking 2 or 3 levels out, but no need to get everything right. The retraining rules really give you leeway to adjust your PC every level to make the abilities fit the character vision.