I think you're making some serious assumptions and projections about what you think is going to happen. Many kids play D&D and are just as good at it as adults. Wait until after you've actually seen their behavior to make up your mind.
But ultimately, it's the GM's call on who does and doesn't join the game. If they invite someone who's a dealbreaker for you, you can politely bring up any issues to them, but you don't have some sort of veto power. If it bothers you too much, the best solution is to find a new gaming group.
I think you're making some serious assumptions and projections about what you think is going to happen. Many kids play D&D and are just as good at it as adults. Wait until after you've actually seen their behavior to make up your mind.
But ultimately, it's the GM's call on who does and doesn't join the game. If they invite someone who's a dealbreaker for you, you can politely bring up any issues to them, but you don't have some sort of veto power. If it bothers you too much, the best solution is to find a new gaming group.
Err… Yes and no. Yes, definitely see how it plays out before making a problem of the situation. No, it’s not (solely) the DM’s call - it’s the entire group’s decision to make. If a majority of the people in the group is against, the DM doesn’t/shouldn’t get to say those players just have to leave.
Now that said, there’s a lot detail here we’re not privy to and maybe the situation itself is still fluid. Maybe the DM will change his mind after a session or two. Maybe things will go more smoothly for the player next time. Maybe things will explode. Who knows? Either way, telling us isn’t going to change anything and asking us is unlikely to sway your opinion of the whole affair. The best approach is to bring it up in the group, in a polite and respectful way of course, and see how the other players feel and if the DM realizes he could have handled this better. This is no different than a player suddenly starting to do something that upsets others: you talk it out in order to find a solution, or things will get worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So there are some tables where the DM is "the decider" and gets to decide who will sit at the table. This sort of executive capacity is predicated on the presumption by the rest of the players that primary responsibility of "taking care of the game" rests upon the DM. It's kinda an old school way of looking at table dynamics, and leans heavily on the "master" aspect of DM. It's not always a power grab by the DM, though it sometimes is. I'd say it's also a gesture of trust by the players, though sure some critiques of table dynamics sees some flaws in this abdication in player's having a role in maintaining the table besides showing up with their character.
Another, and I'd say increasingly more common way of table maintenance/membership is more communal where things like who sits at the table/new players is a collective, deliberative decision. I'd say these two positions are poles on a spectrum where some tables establish a fixed position and others are a more fluid or mutable in their approach.
I have no idea what this thread was about in the OP, but I thought it worth noting that 6th and Pang, while opposed, I think are both right in describing ways tables are managed as far as deciding "who gets to play" and I think in the end the game is played so differently from group to group there isn't a right answer to it. It comes down to how folks measure in game investment and how or whether that investment should be apportioned for group decision making to include things like membership and scheduling. Like all social calculus I don't think there are solid rules to govern.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Though this is really a weird non-topic, I think that DM authority is pretty solid. They are the game administrator. There is a disproprotional burden of effort placed on the DM in terms of Prep and effort required. They're generally the person who has to schedule the games, which is usually indicative that they're the one who has to find the time slot that works. They usually have to invest more money in books and they have the single greatest influence on the quality of the game-- and it's uniquely draining to be a DM.
There are a lot of bleeding hearts who think they should have equal say in the big decisions at the table. However, I think this is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful. The authority of a DM is a priviledge for being the single most important factor as to why any given game is going to happen. If this bothers you, run your own game. I'm sure your DM will happily give up the seat if you ask to run a game.
There are a lot of bleeding hearts who think they should have equal say in the big decisions at the table. However, I think this is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful. The authority of a DM is a priviledge for being the single most important factor as to why any given game is going to happen. If this bothers you, run your own game. I'm sure your DM will happily give up the seat if you ask to run a game.
Ugh... We're not talking about big decisions about the game. The game is the DM's responsibility and thus their domain, but we're talking about the group dynamic in this case. It's utterly silly to have the DM be the sole arbiter of whether it's ok for someone at the table to feel bad about or annoyed by something that isn't even happening in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are a lot of bleeding hearts who think they should have equal say in the big decisions at the table. However, I think this is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful. The authority of a DM is a priviledge for being the single most important factor as to why any given game is going to happen. If this bothers you, run your own game. I'm sure your DM will happily give up the seat if you ask to run a game.
Ugh... We're not talking about big decisions about the game. The game is the DM's responsibility and thus their domain, but we're talking about the group dynamic in this case. It's utterly silly to have the DM be the sole arbiter of whether it's ok for someone at the table to feel bad about or annoyed by something that isn't even happening in the game.
Is this thread some kind of social experiment to see if we will argue about nothing?
Well the answer is yes.
I think with most groups they will grant anyone at the table veto power over a new player joining. At the very least, anyone can vote with their feet, so they can make an ultimatum that if the new player joins, they are leaving, and the other players then have to decide who is a higher priority. 9/10 they will prefer the current player over the new one. The DM has the strongest trump card, in that if they walk, there is no game, unless someone else steps up to take their place. For most practical purposes, the DM possesses a veto over anything that can happen in the game. A DM may refrain from using their power, but they have it. It is also completely reasonable to use it to veto something that will make the game not fun for the DM.
There are a lot of bleeding hearts who think they should have equal say in the big decisions at the table. However, I think this is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful. The authority of a DM is a priviledge for being the single most important factor as to why any given game is going to happen. If this bothers you, run your own game. I'm sure your DM will happily give up the seat if you ask to run a game.
Ugh... We're not talking about big decisions about the game. The game is the DM's responsibility and thus their domain, but we're talking about the group dynamic in this case. It's utterly silly to have the DM be the sole arbiter of whether it's ok for someone at the table to feel bad about or annoyed by something that isn't even happening in the game.
I mean, that's fair, but the topic sentence was deleted. I wasn't very trying to archeologically reconstruct the original post. My take on it was that the DM would or wouldn't democratically consult the whole of the table on an increase or decrease in the number of players. So I decided to broadly address the topic vis-a-vis the title as a guide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hindsight, this isn't going to be resolved here. Thanks for clarification.
I think you're making some serious assumptions and projections about what you think is going to happen. Many kids play D&D and are just as good at it as adults. Wait until after you've actually seen their behavior to make up your mind.
But ultimately, it's the GM's call on who does and doesn't join the game. If they invite someone who's a dealbreaker for you, you can politely bring up any issues to them, but you don't have some sort of veto power. If it bothers you too much, the best solution is to find a new gaming group.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Err… Yes and no. Yes, definitely see how it plays out before making a problem of the situation. No, it’s not (solely) the DM’s call - it’s the entire group’s decision to make. If a majority of the people in the group is against, the DM doesn’t/shouldn’t get to say those players just have to leave.
Now that said, there’s a lot detail here we’re not privy to and maybe the situation itself is still fluid. Maybe the DM will change his mind after a session or two. Maybe things will go more smoothly for the player next time. Maybe things will explode. Who knows? Either way, telling us isn’t going to change anything and asking us is unlikely to sway your opinion of the whole affair. The best approach is to bring it up in the group, in a polite and respectful way of course, and see how the other players feel and if the DM realizes he could have handled this better. This is no different than a player suddenly starting to do something that upsets others: you talk it out in order to find a solution, or things will get worse.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So there are some tables where the DM is "the decider" and gets to decide who will sit at the table. This sort of executive capacity is predicated on the presumption by the rest of the players that primary responsibility of "taking care of the game" rests upon the DM. It's kinda an old school way of looking at table dynamics, and leans heavily on the "master" aspect of DM. It's not always a power grab by the DM, though it sometimes is. I'd say it's also a gesture of trust by the players, though sure some critiques of table dynamics sees some flaws in this abdication in player's having a role in maintaining the table besides showing up with their character.
Another, and I'd say increasingly more common way of table maintenance/membership is more communal where things like who sits at the table/new players is a collective, deliberative decision. I'd say these two positions are poles on a spectrum where some tables establish a fixed position and others are a more fluid or mutable in their approach.
I have no idea what this thread was about in the OP, but I thought it worth noting that 6th and Pang, while opposed, I think are both right in describing ways tables are managed as far as deciding "who gets to play" and I think in the end the game is played so differently from group to group there isn't a right answer to it. It comes down to how folks measure in game investment and how or whether that investment should be apportioned for group decision making to include things like membership and scheduling. Like all social calculus I don't think there are solid rules to govern.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Though this is really a weird non-topic, I think that DM authority is pretty solid. They are the game administrator. There is a disproprotional burden of effort placed on the DM in terms of Prep and effort required. They're generally the person who has to schedule the games, which is usually indicative that they're the one who has to find the time slot that works. They usually have to invest more money in books and they have the single greatest influence on the quality of the game-- and it's uniquely draining to be a DM.
There are a lot of bleeding hearts who think they should have equal say in the big decisions at the table. However, I think this is utterly ridiculous and disrespectful. The authority of a DM is a priviledge for being the single most important factor as to why any given game is going to happen. If this bothers you, run your own game. I'm sure your DM will happily give up the seat if you ask to run a game.
Ugh... We're not talking about big decisions about the game. The game is the DM's responsibility and thus their domain, but we're talking about the group dynamic in this case. It's utterly silly to have the DM be the sole arbiter of whether it's ok for someone at the table to feel bad about or annoyed by something that isn't even happening in the game.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Is this thread some kind of social experiment to see if we will argue about nothing?
Well the answer is yes.
I think with most groups they will grant anyone at the table veto power over a new player joining. At the very least, anyone can vote with their feet, so they can make an ultimatum that if the new player joins, they are leaving, and the other players then have to decide who is a higher priority. 9/10 they will prefer the current player over the new one. The DM has the strongest trump card, in that if they walk, there is no game, unless someone else steps up to take their place. For most practical purposes, the DM possesses a veto over anything that can happen in the game. A DM may refrain from using their power, but they have it. It is also completely reasonable to use it to veto something that will make the game not fun for the DM.
With the original post gone, maybe the thread should be shut down rather than having continuous arguments that lack context for previous posts?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean, that's fair, but the topic sentence was deleted. I wasn't very trying to archeologically reconstruct the original post. My take on it was that the DM would or wouldn't democratically consult the whole of the table on an increase or decrease in the number of players. So I decided to broadly address the topic vis-a-vis the title as a guide.