Your game or theirs?

[Rechan]

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.

Or god forbid the player just enjoys the appeal of that PP or Epic Destiny, and desires to play that character. Y'know, like enjoying the idea of playing a guy who just fights with daggers, and therefore going after the Daggermaster PP because he wants to fight better with daggers.

Or the PP/ED just jives with the concept of the character, as opposed to the kewl stats. If I really want to play a Feylock because I really like the Feywild, then I'm going to take Feytouched, because it fits my character concept. Unless you want to force me to take some PP you come up with, or say that Feytouched just doesn't exist in your campaing, that's what I'm taking.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Another reason whey I am riding the WFRP bandwagon right now.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

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.

Best post I've read in a month. If there are 4 players and 1 DM, there are still 5 people at the table, and that's the most important thing to remember.

 

[Wootz]

I wouldn't say mine or theirs, but it's "our" game. I wouldn't put a rule in my game if it made my players feel hindered, and likewise, if my players came up with some ridiculous houserule (like playing with yu-gi-oh cards....but that's a story for another day) I would reject it. The game is only good so long as everyone is having fun playing it. You could have the most solid setup in the world, but if the people playing aren't having fun there's not much point to it.

 

[Arnwyn]

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?

Either/or is fine, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of either action. (Of course, the above is a little too black/white extreme for my tastes, so neither of those "options" would fly for me and my group.)

For example, I think this stance:

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.

is perfectly reasonable, if that's the way you like things.

For me, I'm not all that much of a binary and extreme person, so I do a mix. I'm happy to listen and hear the players' inputs and discuss them, but in the end it's my decision alone. If they don't like it, I'm perfectly happy to step aside (take this game... please! ) and one of them can DM so I can be a player for once.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Another reason whey I am riding the WFRP bandwagon right now.

Boy, that's the other end of the spectrum for sure.

Nothing like joining a WHFRP game with a great character concept you'd like to grow into a badass Witch Hunter, only to end up as a Ratcatcher and have your chest caved in during the first encounter.

 

[frankthedm]

Boy, that's the other end of the spectrum for sure.

Nothing like joining a WHFRP game with a great character concept you'd like to grow into a badass Witch Hunter, only to end up as a Ratcatcher and have your chest caved in during the first encounter.

Oh, I'd say that example is exactly like joining a WHFRP game

 

[kitsune9]

My style is similar too. I use campaign primers.

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?

Kzach,

I'm pretty much like you in that I create custom rules, feats, classes, materials, etc. for my players. I also have the "my way or the highway" attitude about my creative process.

What I do though to be fair to the players (maybe you do the same thing, not sure), is that develop a campaign primer at the very beginning of the campaign before the players even roll up new characters. It details what house rules I use, custom classes, new feats, and allowable books for the players to use. I expect my players to read it and know where I'm coming from. I even write a paragraph about my style and the "social contract" in the campaign primer. My players have been gaming with me for years, so they know what to expect at the start of every campaign.

If the players want to use tricks and or abilities that can break encounters, that's fine with me such as picking up the super cool feats and broken spells, but they know that I will use the same tactics on them. Turn around is fair play.

What I don't do though is make changes in mid-stream of the session or usually in the campaign unless it's absolutely warranted. So if I think of new rules or other ways to do something, I put it aside until the next campaign and that can be a couple of years as we typically play from 1st to 20th in our campaigns before starting over again.

I know that I've been in your shoes where my players criticized my house rules (back in 2nd edition) so creating the campaign primer for the players at the beginning of every campaign is a great way making sure that everyone understands how I run the game and that they have no illusions.

 

[catsclaw227]

Or god forbid the player just enjoys the appeal of that PP or Epic Destiny, and desires to play that character. Y'know, like enjoying the idea of playing a guy who just fights with daggers, and therefore going after the Daggermaster PP because he wants to fight better with daggers.

Or the PP/ED just jives with the concept of the character, as opposed to the kewl stats. If I really want to play a Feylock because I really like the Feywild, then I'm going to take Feytouched, because it fits my character concept. Unless you want to force me to take some PP you come up with, or say that Feytouched just doesn't exist in your campaing, that's what I'm taking.

Well, of course this would be acceptable. I just like to let the PCs know that there will be other options if the keep an open mind. I think that if the players have some great RP potential behind their choices, that's all I ask. Not just knocking out a PC based upon some min/max build they saw somewhere.

 

[tenkar]

Kzach,

I'm pretty much like you in that I create custom rules, feats, classes, materials, etc. for my players. I also have the "my way or the highway" attitude about my creative process.

What I do though to be fair to the players (maybe you do the same thing, not sure), is that develop a campaign primer at the very beginning of the campaign before the players even roll up new characters. It details what house rules I use, custom classes, new feats, and allowable books for the players to use. I expect my players to read it and know where I'm coming from. I even write a paragraph about my style and the "social contract" in the campaign primer. My players have been gaming with me for years, so they know what to expect at the start of every campaign.

If the players want to use tricks and or abilities that can break encounters, that's fine with me such as picking up the super cool feats and broken spells, but they know that I will use the same tactics on them. Turn around is fair play.

What I don't do though is make changes in mid-stream of the session or usually in the campaign unless it's absolutely warranted. So if I think of new rules or other ways to do something, I put it aside until the next campaign and that can be a couple of years as we typically play from 1st to 20th in our campaigns before starting over again.

I know that I've been in your shoes where my players criticized my house rules (back in 2nd edition) so creating the campaign primer for the players at the beginning of every campaign is a great way making sure that everyone understands how I run the game and that they have no illusions.

From what i read he is springing some new houserules mid-campaign:

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.

This isnt just upsetting to the players that plan all 20 levels out in advance, it also effects the player that has chosen a class / race / etc based upon facts that have been now changed.

Change can be good... but surprises like this rarely are in my mind.

If you lay out ALL your houserules from the start the players know what they are in for... if they are introduced as the situation presents itself, you are going to get some resistance and resentment.