Your game or theirs?

[Kzach]

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?

 

[Toben the Many]

The real problem, it sounds like to me, is that you are just now implementing some of the rules you are talking about.

As a player, I have no problem with the DM being the authority. However, I do have serious problems when the DM says, "I'm going to introduce a new rule." or "I'm going to change the rules on you."

Often times, such rules changes means that my character or someone else's character is nerfed. And I would probably have made a totally different character had I known about the rules changes way ahead of time.

For me, personally, I don't mind houserules - but I want to know about them upfront. Even if the houserules are, IMO, silly or unbalanced or dumb. I'll go ahead and play with them so long as I know what to expect.

As a rule, most people don't like change.

 

[shilsen]

I think it's neither your game nor theirs exclusively, but both. And so, my answer would be "neither" to the questions you ask at the end of your post:

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?

Personally, I would tell the players that since I need to be happy with the rules in the game to be able to run it successfully and in a manner which'll benefit the campaign, I need to have the final say on all rules. That said, I would add that since I respect their input and they will, after all, be running characters in the campaign, I'm happy to hear their opinions about all rules and rulings and will take them into account when making a decision. And I'd just appreciate it if they respect my rulings and don't complain when I do make a decision, since I can't really run the game if they do so regularly.

That's what I'd do, and that's what I do, and I think the above is a key reason why I have a still running 3 year old campaign (coming up on the 90th session) with a very diverse group of people with divergent tastes and outlooks on gaming. The sort of autocratic outlook you have on DMing wouldn't work for me as DM or player, and it certainly wouldn't work for any of the multiple groups I've been (and am) involved with.

 

[Neil Bishop]

The problem with the little autocracy you have created is that, as autocrat, everything relies on your judgement. What if you are wrong?

Also, it's not your game or their game: you all "own" it. If a player wants to be a sounding board why not exchange emails between sessions?

That's different to having every ruling you make in a game questioned. Sure, sometimes that can go too far but I wouldn't lose friends or players over a desire to preserve my little empire when a little bit of negotiation/give and take could produce a superior game for everyone.

 

[Rechan]

As a DM (which is my primary role), I would never take an attitude of "You are a guest in the presence of my game." And if I went to someone else's table and the attitude was "Here is my game, you shut up and like it," I'd politely walk out. To me it shows a lack of respect, among other things.

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?

Do you honestly believe there is no gray between that black and white?

A DM is not there just to entertain the players and hand them the keys to the kingdom without say. Neither are the players there to be puppets to dance to the DM's tune without question. Gaming is a collaborative effort. Everyone at the table is supposed to be friends. The DM is a deciding figure, yes, but that is only because the players agree to let him have the final (but not the only) say.

Honestly, the DM is just a referee, not an unquestionable judge.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Whenever I have a house rule or a proposed change I let the players know. I let them in on all of the details.

If after a number of sesiions a change or house rule is getting complaints, I'll tweak or abolish it until the players are satisfied.

Dungeons and Dragons, or any rpg for that matter is about the heroes. Sure, every game needs a GM, but if the players aren't happy, they move on. A GM without players isn't a GM for much longer.

In my experience this is the best way to handle things.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Frankly, given the terms and the attitude you set out in this post, I'd flag you as a problem player and boot you. Anybody on such a "take my ball and go home" hair trigger is going to end up fracturing the game sooner or later, whether as a player or a DM.

 

[megamania]

I rarely change rules but I will bring in new rules / resources.


My general rule is what is good for the goose is good for the ganger.


Everyone needs to be happy however.

 

[Phaezen]

I think it's neither your game nor theirs exclusively, but both.

Personally, I would tell the players that since I need to be happy with the rules in the game to be able to run it successfully and in a manner which'll benefit the campaign, I need to have the final say on all rules. That said, I would add that since I respect their input and they will, after all, be running characters in the campaign, I'm happy to hear their opinions about all rules and rulings and will take them into account when making a decision. And I'd just appreciate it if they respect my rulings and don't complain when I do make a decision, since I can't really run the game if they do so regularly.

That's what I'd do, and that's what I do, and I think the above is a key reason why I have a still running 3 year old campaign (coming up on the 90th session) with a very diverse group of people with divergent tastes and outlooks on gaming. The sort of autocratic outlook you have on DMing wouldn't work for me as DM or player, and it certainly wouldn't work for any of the multiple groups I've been (and am) involved with.

Whenever I have a house rule or a proposed change I let the players know. I let them in on all of the details.

If after a number of sesiions a change or house rule is getting complaints, I'll tweak or abolish it until the players are satisfied.

Dungeons and Dragons, or any rpg for that matter is about the heroes. Sure, every game needs a GM, but if the players aren't happy, they move on. A GM without players isn't a GM for much longer.

In my experience this is the best way to handle things.

This.

I discuss any potential houserules with my players and listen to thier feedback and if we find a certain houserule is not working the way it was intended then we revisit it and alter or scrap it. This is a co-operative story telling game, so everyone needs input to make it successful.

Phaezen

 

[Prisoner6]

... 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.

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

... Two people have now left for greener pastures,

... 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.

If you're not interested in other people's input, why are you bothering to post here?

I'm not trying to be overly harsh, but there are a lot of red flags here. You KNEW ahead of time that your DMing "style" causes problems, but your way of dealing with it was to demand no one question your authority. That's not dealing with the root problems (your DMing style) but instead attempting to deny their existence.

If nobody talks about it then it's not a problem, right?

It sounds like the problems go much deeper than just players questioning a couple of house rules to me.