Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I decided to give our DM a little break from running and give him a chance to play so I told him I was going to come up with an old school dungeon crawl. I wanted it to be about the basic team work and builds, not going balls to the wall character optimization to test the newest broken builds as well as capture a bit of the essence of older editions so I limited everything to the Essentials books, and even disallowed Eladrin and Tieflings. No mixing and matching of 4e and essentials feats to do some crazyness: just nice, streamlined characters. For this reason I also went with inherent bonuses and allowed feats and gear from the Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium (it has the rest of the weapon expertise feats, as well as the other armors like studded leather). I set the starting level at 3. Here are the responses to someone volunteering to DM:

I want to be a Blackguard (not a basic Essentials class)
I want to start at level 11
I want to do this using a different system (says the one guy who knows other systems but isn't the one to teach the other players)
I want to use racial feats from other sources

Now the DM is sad becuase he'll never get to play his druid and experience being on the other side of the table. No one wants to DM, but they want to tell you how to. And this is why I hate my players, as well as why we can't have nice things.

Give 'em an inch ...

So, you've described this as a dungeon crawl but have discouraged optimization? This shows my own prejudices but I think that is something of a mixed message.

What is the long-term goal?

Are the characters' personalities important? Should the players bother with backstory? If so, will that backstory have any effect on how you build the encounters or will it be purely "reactive"?

If this is going to be a long-term, story-oriented game, I can sympathize with the players who want more options than the ones you've outlined. If I was going to spend a long time in one skin of my choice, I'd want the greatest possible variety of options. I also have some sympathy for the guy who wants to start at level 11, given that I have an experimental interest in that sort of thing.

Of course, if this is a short-term (two months or so max) project then I have little-to-no sympathy with any of their points.

As to the guy who wants to use a different system (a retro-clone or 3.X/Pathfinder perchance?), well, that's the one that irritates me. I love to try new systems but not as a suggestion for when the DM who's been running 4E wants to play 4E as a PC for a change. As a Confucian, I have a strong preference for doing the right thing at the right time so I certainly can see why you are irked on that point.

Manchu wrote:Give 'em an inch ...

If they had come at me differently, maybe.

Manchu wrote:So, you've described this as a dungeon crawl but have discouraged optimization? This shows my own prejudices but I think that is something of a mixed message.

I don't think we are talking about the same optimization here. We have a dragonborn Sorcerer that at level 13 does 1d10+21 damage with a +23 to hit vs Reflex (an optimized Rogue is +21 vs AC) with his dragonbreath and can do it three times a turn up to 10 squares away, or twice and still have a standard action. I'm not referring to optimized meaning competent, but as gimmicks. You can make perfectly optimized characters using the basic books, you don't need the basic book, 15 splat books, and 100 issues of Dragon to make a good character. I know I have told some of the stories here before about this group, such as the cleric just showing up as a different race becuase he felt the racial was more optimized, and that is a mild example of how they approach character and character building. They also like to dip into Dark Sun for the weapons, as they are OP compared to the normal games. I going by the maxim of Thereau that said "simplify, simplify, simplify".

Manchu wrote:What is the long-term goal?

Survive the dungeon. It was only going to be a few sessions at best, not a campaign.

Manchu wrote:Are the characters' personalities important?

Nope.

Manchu wrote:Should the players bother with backstory?

Nope

Manchu wrote:If so, will that backstory have any effect on how you build the encounters or will it be purely "reactive"?

Nope

Manchu wrote:Of course, if this is a short-term (two months or so max) project then I have little-to-no sympathy with any of their points.

Yup

The handout had all the rules for character building and art from the 1st edition players guide as well as explaining it was a simple dungeon crawl. Once a month (we meet once a week) I would run a couple rooms so the DM could take that week off the main campaign.

So the final word is that they don't want to play it at all?

Manchu wrote:So the final word is that they don't want to play it at all?

I'll just hold on to it until there are people who do want to play it. Not going to force it down anyone's throat. Imagine baking a cake just to be nice and then when you present it all you hear how they won't eat it becuase the icing isn't the right kind, that it isn't the right shape, it isn't the right flavor of cake, or that someone would rather have a pie. It doesn't put one in the most generous of moods.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:So the final word is that they don't want to play it at all?

I'll just hold on to it until there are people who do want to play it. Not going to force it down anyone's throat. Imagine baking a cake just to be nice and then when you present it all you hear how they won't eat it becuase the icing isn't the right kind, that it isn't the right shape, it isn't the right flavor of cake, or that someone would rather have a pie. It doesn't put one in the most generous of moods.

That cake comparison really hits me where I live.

This girl once told me that she liked those sugar-cookies with the orange frosting from Wal-Mart better than my chocolate cake.

I feel for you.

Sounds like they are spoiled with the DM you have. Handing out characters starting at 11 sounds like power gamer bait.

Tell them you understand how it might be hard for them to enjoy a game that could be challenging.

If it is just a series of dungeon runs with no RP there should be no reason for them to gripe about not getting to get what they want. Attitude goes a long way with my players, they ask nice and I don't want to burn their character sheets. Thankfully they are really good about not whining.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:So the final word is that they don't want to play it at all?

I'll just hold on to it until there are people who do want to play it. Not going to force it down anyone's throat. Imagine baking a cake just to be nice and then when you present it all you hear how they won't eat it becuase the icing isn't the right kind, that it isn't the right shape, it isn't the right flavor of cake, or that someone would rather have a pie. It doesn't put one in the most generous of moods.

It's more like you as head chef unilaterally decided on the ingredients for a group bake sale but all your cooks are arguing about the recipe before baking. The actual "meat" of a game is the playing of it and that part is a collaborative process that you'll have to deal with as DM. You want players to come up with new characters using an strict, arbitrary set of limiting parameters that they don't normally use and are miffed that they're simply just not going along with it? If you're that invested in doing this one off adventure your way, why not just make up a dozen premade characters yourself (giving each race 2 or more classes to choose from) and just let them pick from them like in a gaming convention game? It's nice that you've stepped up to the plate and allowed your DM to take a break but it doesn't sound like the rest of the group was let in on the decision making till after.

The Foot wrote:If it is just a series of dungeon runs with no RP there should be no reason for them to gripe about not getting to get what they want. Attitude goes a long way with my players, they ask nice and I don't want to burn their character sheets. Thankfully they are really good about not whining.

As I said above if it had been approached differently I would probably reacted differently.

warboss wrote:It's more like you as head chef unilaterally decided on the ingredients for a group bake sale but all your cooks are arguing about the recipe before baking.

Actually it isn't like that at all. It is actually much more like what I said earlier with the cake. I suppose it must be nice to be in a place where there are 500 DM's and 100 players, but around here getting people to DM is like pulling teeth so usually when someone is willing to step up and put their time and energy into running a game it is often polite not to take a massive gak on them. I'm also guessing you have never been around a real kitchen that has a head chef becuase they do make the decisions unilaterally becuase they are the head chef.

warboss wrote:The actual "meat" of a game is the playing of it and that part is a collaborative process that you'll have to deal with as DM.

That is such a broad and useless statement that it could be interpreted to both strengthen either side of the argument. Of course if the 'meat' is playing you seem to have overlooked that we aren't playing, so there is no meat.

warboss wrote:You want players to come up with new characters using an strict, arbitrary set of limiting parameters that they don't normally use and are miffed that they're simply just not going along with it?

In what world is going by just the core players handbooks for character creation arbitrary and strict? Forgoing the idea that the main rulebooks are now arbitrary and strict, you make it sound like you have never heard of house rules, which have been a part of PnP gaming since its inception. It is also a bit disingenuous to criticize having rules in a hobby that is rule heavy; there is a reason they are called Rule Books and not Happy Sunshine Books. The rules determine the scope and breadth of any given game, just like Warhammer.

warboss wrote:If you're that invested in doing this one off adventure your way, why not just make up a dozen premade characters yourself (giving each race 2 or more classes to choose from) and just let them pick from them like in a gaming convention game?

We don't even play premades at conventions and I don't see how giving them the freedom to make their own characters means that I am in the wrong for wanting to invest the time in this. Maybe you don't know this but DM'ing takes a lot more time, energy, and materials than being a player.

warboss wrote:It's nice that you've stepped up to the plate and allowed your DM to take a break but it doesn't sound like the rest of the group was let in on the decision making till after.

It isn't their decision to make. I don't need a democratic process to determine whether I will offer to run a game or not. If I come up with an idea or a story that I want to pursue I will do what I did here and present and at that point it is up to them. I am not their puppet, here to make my world revolve around their every whim. I allowed one guy to be a drow even though I originally hadn't intended to allow drow (they aren't in the 2e players book and this was supposed to be 2e in 4e) but I thought it was reasonable enough, and then he said he had to be at least level 11, not 3.

Oh, and 3 wasn't arbitrarily chosen.

Without getting into all of the details of what you posted, it is important to keep in mind that D&D is a collaborative experience. I understand that you have a vision, but your vision should not overrun the players. After all, the goal of D&D is to have fun and if not everyone is having fun, than as a group you've failed.

If the players and DM can't agree on what they want to do, than the game doesn't really happen. Just because you are the DM, doesn't mean you can ignore the players desires even if you are taking one for the team by doing it.

You are completely correct that they can take or leave your offer to DM and that looks like what happened. What's the next step though? If no one compromises, than no game happens.

I guess I'm just lucky because my gaming group has been together for 8+ years and plays whatever we feel like. We change up the feel and type of games all the time for player preference.

pretre wrote:After all, the goal of D&D is to have fun and if not everyone is having fun, than as a group you've failed.

And yet if people won't even consider playing unless they each have their individual way, then you don't even get the chance to have fun -- which must, by the scale you're using, be an "epic fail."

pretre wrote:Just because you are the DM, doesn't mean you can ignore the players desires even if you are taking one for the team by doing it.

That strikes me as a bit too harsh. Ahtman isn't "taking one for the team" but rather wants to DM -- but what he wants to play is not necessarily what the players want to play. Take note that each player has a unique objection. Even if deciding what kind of game one would be willing to DM was a matter of democracy (it's not), there is no majority, simple or otherwise, position in this situation and so why single out Ahtman for critique regarding the "collaborative nature" of D&D?

I guess I'm just lucky because my gaming group has been together for 8+ years and plays whatever we feel like. We change up the feel and type of games all the time for player preference.

I'd say you are very, very lucky indeed.

pretre wrote:Without getting into all of the details of what you posted, it is important to keep in mind that D&D is a collaborative experience.

Again, broad and vague. It is collaborative, but players aren't DM's. I don't see how saying that we were going to just stick to the core rulebooks means I am not collaborating. Even so most of that comes from the playing. You guys are acting like I'm supposed to let them come up with the maps and run the monsters.

Collaboration works both ways and they are the ones who are being intractable.

pretre wrote:I understand that you have a vision, but your vision should not overrun the players.

And my players shouldn't overrun me, either. The DM is not the players whipping boy.

pretre wrote:After all, the goal of D&D is to have fun and if not everyone is having fun, than as a group you've failed.

How can we have fun or fail if we haven't even played? To put it in board game terms I asked if anyone wanted to play Monopoly and they said they wanted to play Chutes and Ladders. If they want to play that fine, but I don't own it and I'm not going to buy it just for them.

pretre wrote:If the players and DM can't agree on what they want to do, than the game doesn't really happen. Just because you are the DM, doesn't mean you can ignore the players desires even if you are taking one for the team by doing it.

Where in this whole screed does it sound like I am mistreating these players? I offerend to run a game using the core Essentials books at level 3 and what I got was "I want to be level 11", "I want to play something outside the core rulebooks", and "I want to play another system". You guys are acting like I'm being an donkey-cave becuase I won't switch from wanting to run a basic D&D game to allowing them to be a level 20 Dark Paladin in Shadowrun 2.0.

pretre wrote:If no one compromises, than no game happens.

I still have my doubts as to whether one needs as much compromise as you suggest, but this wasn't a main game and it doesn't need to be played. I'm perfectly content putting my time and resources to other uses.

pretre wrote:I guess I'm just lucky because my gaming group has been together for 8+ years and plays whatever we feel like. We change up the feel and type of games all the time for player preference.

I've been with this group for 2 years (the DM for 13) and part of the point of this was to try and change up the type and feel becuase it is the same stuff over and over, as well as allow the DM to play a game.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:After all, the goal of D&D is to have fun and if not everyone is having fun, than as a group you've failed.

And yet if people won't even consider playing unless they each have their individual way, then you don't even get the chance to have fun -- which must, by the scale you're using, be an "epic fail."

I didn't get that they wouldn't play unless they had their way from the post. What I got was that he was unwilling to compromise his vision of his game and when they asked for concessions he flat-out said no. edit: From his responses, I misinterpreted his posts. My bad, Ahtman.

I completely get where he is coming from. I have run 'I have a vision' games and they are great, but sometimes the players just aren't into them.

Ahtman wrote:Collaboration works both ways and they are the ones who are being intractable.

To be honest, I think it is a bit of both. They want their game their way and you want your game your way.

And my players shouldn't overrun me, either. The DM is not the players whipping boy.

Completely agree.

Where in this whole screed does it sound like I am mistreating these players?

No one is saying your an donkey-cave or whatever. I'm just saying that if you want to run a game, you need to compromise. If you don't want to run the game if you have to compromise it, then don't run it. It's that easy. Don't complain that the players are uncompromising though, because they're just acting the same as you in this situation. You both have your positions and won't budge from them.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but if neither party budges, nothing changes.

pretre wrote:What I got was that he was unwilling to compromise his vision of his game and when they asked for concessions he flat-out said no. Maybe I misinterpreted his posts.

See:

Ahtman wrote:I allowed one guy to be a drow even though I originally hadn't intended to allow drow (they aren't in the 2e players book and this was supposed to be 2e in 4e) but I thought it was reasonable enough, and then he said he had to be at least level 11, not 3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a prime example of how the players are the ones who are being intractable by the way.

Also, how do you compromise with the person who doesn't even want to play D&D 4E?

To use your boardgame analogy, imagine that your group always plays Monopoly, they like Monopoly, they have fun playing Monopoly and pretty much just want to play Monopoly. Now one guy doesn't want to bring the board and be responsible anymore for it, so you offer to run a Star Wars Monopoly game. They might not be so down with it because it is different and different scares them.

The only question I'd need to ask would be, is this a group that is roleplay focused or Roll-play focused. As if its the former, I can see why you are having issues.

I applaud you for trying something different, but I know certain members of my gaming groups over the years, who would rather go jump under a bus, than take part in the kind of game you are descibing.

I'm of a similar mindset, if we are getting to the Warhammer Quest level of 'roleplay' experience, I am of the mind, might as well for go the whole illusion of roleplay, and just play it like a boardgame.

So is it, folks throwing rattles out the pram because they can't have min-max goodies, or is it a case of roleplayers, not liking the idea of playing blank sheets with stat numbers on them?

To put a finer point on it, I think there is a big and clear difference between a DM saying "here's my script, you will be Archedemes the Wizard and your motivation is to find your long lost badger" on the one hand and saying "let's run a retro-style crawl using the essentials books." This "I have a vision" type of campaign you're talking about is not the same thing as what Ahtman is talking about.

Manchu wrote:This is a prime example of how the players are the ones who are being intractable by the way.

Also, how do you compromise with the person who doesn't even want to play D&D 4E?

Yeah, I updated my response. I get that he's compromising a bit. I just think that you have to know your group too. It sucks that he can't find one that fits his tastes more. My experiences always color my responses and I've always had a good group.

That guy? Screw that guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:To put a finer point on it, I think there is a big and clear difference between a DM saying "here's my script, you will be Archedemes the Wizard and your motivation is to find your long lost badger" on the one hand and saying "let's run a retro-style crawl using the essentials books." This "I have a vision" type of campaign you're talking about is not the same thing as what Ahtman is talking about.

No, it is exactly what I'm talking about.

He has limited the books, created a handout and set restrictions on what the players can and can't do based on his vision of how the game runs. I too have done this. This is exactly a 'I have a vision' type campaign.

I hope to never meet a 'Here's your script' DM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, inherent bonuses vs Magic Gear is a BIG difference for a lot of players. That's his vision of the game and it might not fit with Monty Haul players.

Ahtman wrote:
Where in this whole screed does it sound like I am mistreating these players? I offerend to run a game using the core Essentials books at level 3 and what I got was "I want to be level 11", "I want to play something outside the core rulebooks", and "I want to play another system". You guys are acting like I'm being an donkey-cave becuase I won't switch from wanting to run a basic D&D game to allowing them to be a level 20 Dark Paladin in Shadowrun 2.0.

So many updates since I started responding, yeah, this seems to be the problem right here, and sadly I too have had this kind of player, fortunately not in any of my main groups, but the weekly games club I used to run at the Liberal club, was pretty much open to all, and on occasion you had the odd person a little set in their ways.

pretre wrote:I didn't get that they wouldn't play unless they had their way from the post.

Really? It seems so obvious. Yes, they will only play if they each get their way, and they each want something different.

pretre wrote:What I got was that he was unwilling to compromise his vision of his game and when they asked for concessions he flat-out said no.

I still don;t get how using the basic rulebooks is a work of stunning vision that I cannot be swayed from. I also don;t see what is so tough about creating a character using the core rulebooks.

pretre wrote: Maybe I misinterpreted his posts.

Maybe, just maybe.

pretre wrote:Because he is the one posting.

How does me posting make me intractable?

pretre wrote:For example, the blackguard or drow, what's the problem?

I allowed the Drow, even though I really shouldn't have. I wouldn't allow it becuase the point was to create a 2e atmosphere using 4e rules and Drow where not a player race in 2e. If it makes you feel better he didn't pick a Drow becuase he had a character concept, but becuase he wanted the racial and the lined up stat bonuses; anything to do with Drow background or personality have no bearing.

As for Blackguard, it isn't a Essentials class and we aren't mixing Essentials and non-essentials. Bad things happen when you do that. For another reason part of the exercise was to get back to basics, and it wouldn't be fair to let one player use a splat book but limit the others to the core rulebooks. Allowing it would defeat the purpose as well as being unfair. It is like when Pathfinder people tell me it fixed problems with 3.5 then proceed to allow all the splatbooks from 3.5 to be used, which seems to defeat the purpose of fixing it.

pretre wrote:'Why I hate my players' instead of 'here's the issue I'm having' doesn't make me terribly sympathetic.

I don't really want or need your sympathy one way or the other, but you should stop being so literal in everything. I obliviously don't hate the other players or I wouldn't be playing with them to begin with. It was exaggeration for effect. I didn't think anyone was going to literally think I hated them. Annoyed? Sure. Hate? No. They aren't really 'my' players either, as I am part of the group.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:He has limited the books, created a handout and set restrictions on what the players can and can't do based on his vision of how the game runs. I too have done this. This is exactly a 'I have a vision' type campaign.

The handout said they could use the core rulebooks (and one splatbook that had items that should be in the core rulebooks) and that we would be using inherent bonuses. MY GOD WHAT KIND OF MONSTER AM I?!

pretre wrote:I hope to never meet a 'Here's your script' DM.

If you find this oppressive, you must be new to the hobby or have a very insular group. Avoid conventions.

pretre wrote:Heck, inherent bonuses vs Magic Gear is a BIG difference for a lot of players. That's his vision of the game and it might not fit with Monty Haul players.

Gosh, do you think making it not about item combinations might have been part of the point? They have become accustomed to building characters around gear and not the other way around, so we (I did talk to the normal DM about this) thought it might be nice to play a game that isn't entirely centered around getting specific magic items.

Let me give you a 'for instance' of altering your vision to meet your group's needs.

Recently, my group decided to take a break from D&D. We decided that we should go with a Supers game. I'm the default DM, so I chose Aberrant as the system and came up with a sandbox supers game set in Seattle (think Infamous).

During character creation, the players decided they would play each other and during the first session they clearly decided that they would not try to stay in Seattle regardless of the plot and logistical/threat ramifications of trying to leave a city quarantined by the US military.

Now, I could have laid down the law or greased them, but instead I adapted the game so that we could all have a good time. They got out and the game's plot and mechanics are now changing to fit what the group wanted to do.

I had a vision, but my vision had to change in the realities of the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The handout said they could use the core rulebooks (and one splatbook that had items that should be in the core rulebooks) and that we would be using inherent bonuses. MY GOD WHAT KIND OF MONSTER AM I?!

An over-dramatic one. lol.
Seriously though, if they're not into it, they're not into it.

Gosh, do you think making it not about item combinations might have been part of the point? They have become accustomed to building characters around gear and not the other way around, so we (I did talk to the normal DM about this) thought it might be nice to play a game that isn't entirely centered around getting specific magic items.

No, I get what you're trying to do, but they're not into it.

There's nothing wrong with the type of game that you're proposing. I get it completely, but your group isn't down with it. That either means adapt your game to fit your group or don't play it.

pretre wrote:I had a vision, but my vision had to change in the realities of the situation.

And it is absolutely nothing like the situation we have been talking about at all. If we remove all context, we can just pretend every situation is the same.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:So is it, folks throwing rattles out the pram because they can't have min-max goodies, or is it a case of roleplayers, not liking the idea of playing blank sheets with stat numbers on them?

Good question -- but none of the complaints he mentioned seem to have much to do with roleplay -- even being a drow came down to racial feats, I think.

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:I had a vision, but my vision had to change in the realities of the situation.

And it is absolutely nothing like the situation we have been talking about at all. If we remove all context, we can just pretend every situation is the same.

I disagree, but it looks like you came here for a 'There, there your players are real dicks and that's why we can't have nice things' and not for any real discussion of the topic so I'll just stop here.

Ahtman wrote:

warboss wrote:You want players to come up with new characters using an strict, arbitrary set of limiting parameters that they don't normally use and are miffed that they're simply just not going along with it?

In what world is going by just the core players handbooks for character creation arbitrary and strict? Forgoing the idea that the main rulebooks are now arbitrary and strict, you make it sound like you have never heard of house rules, which have been a part of PnP gaming since its inception. It is also a bit disingenuous to criticize having rules in a hobby that is rule heavy; there is a reason they are called Rule Books and not Happy Sunshine Books. The rules determine the scope and breadth of any given game, just like Warhammer.

warboss wrote:If you're that invested in doing this one off adventure your way, why not just make up a dozen premade characters yourself (giving each race 2 or more classes to choose from) and just let them pick from them like in a gaming convention game?

We don't even play premades at conventions and I don't see how giving them the freedom to make their own characters means that I am in the wrong for wanting to invest the time in this. Maybe you don't know this but DM'ing takes a lot more time, energy, and materials than being a player.

warboss wrote:It's nice that you've stepped up to the plate and allowed your DM to take a break but it doesn't sound like the rest of the group was let in on the decision making till after.

It isn't their decision to make. I don't need a democratic process to determine whether I will offer to run a game or not. If I come up with an idea or a story that I want to pursue I will do what I did here and present and at that point it is up to them. I am not their puppet, here to make my world revolve around their every whim. I allowed one guy to be a drow even though I originally hadn't intended to allow drow (they aren't in the 2e players book and this was supposed to be 2e in 4e) but I thought it was reasonable enough, and then he said he had to be at least level 11, not 3.

Oh, and 3 wasn't arbitrarily chosen.

In a world where there are dozens of official 4the edition books as well as 100's of online Dungeon/Dragon magazine articles, limiting your players to just the Essential books is indeed quite strict. Carving out certain races from that already very limited book selection (when your players are obviously used to a wider choice) is arbitrary on top of that. There is nothing wrong morally with your choice just as there is nothing wrong with the players collectively saying they don't agree. My point is that you need to cater your campaign (even a one-shot) to both your vision as DM and the players' if you want it to succeed. In a perfect world, everyone would just bow down to your whims and you would later return the favor. In the real world, most players want to have some say in the type of games they play and (to use your own wording) don't like to be treated like puppets with their characters revolving around your pruned garden world's every whim. You don't need a democratic process to determine whether to craft your own game world but you do need one to determine if that game will ever see the light of the tabletop. This is true regardless of whether you've got a huge gaming population locally or a tiny one. I've been on both sides of the coin (as a player for over 20 years and DM for half that time collectively in concurrent campaigns) so I offered my advice as your GM style is frankly coming off as very Cartman-esque.

Manchu wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:So is it, folks throwing rattles out the pram because they can't have min-max goodies, or is it a case of roleplayers, not liking the idea of playing blank sheets with stat numbers on them?

Good question -- but none of the complaints he mentioned seem to have much to do with roleplay -- even being a drow came down to racial feats, I think.

Yeah, one of the posts that came up as I was doing mine, clarified it a bit better, and it does sound like most of the complaints where.. I want to min-max this game to death. *shudders* that bugs the hell out of me as a DM.

pretre wrote:Recently, my group decided to take a break from D&D. We decided that we should go with a Supers game. I'm the default DM, so I chose Aberrant as the system and came up with a sandbox supers game set in Seattle (think Infamous).

Stop right there. Now imagine someone in your group said "no, I want to play Mutants & Masterminds instead." How do you compromise.

That is (part of) Ahtman's situation and much more on point, which is to say characteristic of the overall situation, than the "imposing my vision on everyone" model you're talking about. If picking a ruleset is imposing your vision then I don't know how any group that isn't okay with having another's vision imposed upon them is ever supposed to work.

Manchu wrote:Stop right there. Now imagine someone in your group said "no, I want to play Mutants & Masterminds instead." How do you compromise.

That is (part of) Ahtman's situation and much more on point, which is to say characteristic of the overall situation, than the "imposing my vision on everyone" model you're talking about. If picking a ruleset is imposing your vision then I don't know how any group that isn't okay with having another's vision imposed upon them is ever supposed to work.

To be fair, that is one guy in the group and I already said 'Screw that guy'. More approriately would be if I said 'And you can't use anything but the main rulebook' and the players disagreed, so we decided not to play the game at all.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:Recently, my group decided to take a break from D&D. We decided that we should go with a Supers game. I'm the default DM, so I chose Aberrant as the system and came up with a sandbox supers game set in Seattle (think Infamous).

Stop right there. Now imagine someone in your group said "no, I want to play Mutants & Masterminds instead." How do you compromise.

That is (part of) Ahtman's situation and much more on point, which is to say characteristic of the overall situation, than the "imposing my vision on everyone" model you're talking about. If picking a ruleset is imposing your vision then I don't know how any group that isn't okay with having another's vision imposed upon them is ever supposed to work.

While I'm obviously not part of Ahtman's gaming group, his posts do indicate a significant difference. In his story, he and current DM decided to switch places and the other players were just later let in on that decision and its ramifications. In pretre's story, it seems like they all talked about it and implicitly gave him the freedom to choose the ruleset. The two are quite different. Could a single player not agree with the groupthink and decide not to play? Sure... But when all but one player (the ex-DM) wants to run characters you're not allowing, the problematic shoe is on the other foot. Successful roleplaying is a collaborative effort and not DM C00N and PC friends.

edit: ninja'd by petre. I guess he did have the one guy I mentioned above.