Alright - if you can fail to take offense at my post ( and I can definitely get overheated, so my sincere apologies there. Sorry. ) - I can do the same. I actually didn't find your post offensive or disrespectful.
With the caveat that we may just have to agree to disagree ...
I didn't find your post offensive or disrespectful, but I do think your opinions and the attitudes exhibited towards your Players are dangerous. Perhaps you can balance that stance without it going to your head and you being a "dictatorial *******"; I can't tell, I've never sat at your table. But I've been playing RPGs off-and-on since the days of the red/blue D&D boxed sets in the 70s, and I've seen a lot of GMs fall prey to exactly that, becoming little tinpot dictator prima donnas who throw temper tantrums when anything comes out of a Player's imagination which doesn't match their personal creative vision.
The GM role incorporates a level of work and responsibility greater than that of any one Player; we don't disagree there whatsoever. But it doesn't convey a level of authority over anythingother than the initial composition of the Adventure, the adjudication of the Rules, and control of Pacing & Tone. It does not convey any authority over the social contract of the Group, it does not allow you to dictate the play style of your Players to them, and it does not allow you to automatically veto their imaginations (the best it conveys there is the right to adjust and incorporate it into the game in a reasonable and thematically consistent manner, vetoing only when that's not possible - as seems to be the case with the OP). It conveys more responsibility, and therefore more rights for decision making, only over some aspects of the game.
It absolutely doesn't make you, personally, a cut above a mere Player.
Even in the composition and flow of the Game, the Players are not there merely to jump through the hoops that the GM has provided for them. Sorry - but no single human being has all the answers, and doesn't automatically always have all the best creative ideas. They just don't. Almost everyone has something to contribute. I have freely taken ideas from the Players, and even from Player conversations in game, and used them as a creative springboard to narrative places that I wouldn't have gotten to relying solely on my own imagination. Nor could they have gone there themselves - only by me covertly collaborating with their imagination, did the Game get to where it went. If you can't - or won't - improve and change up your game on the fly, without violating consistency, based on external inspiration - even from your Players - then maybe that's something you can improve upon, otherwise you are short-changing your Game, and your Players, by providing less of a game than it could have been.
I disagree that the DM embodies the rest of the entire universe - to paraphrase you. Sorry, no one is a supercomputer, and we don't hold an entire, dynamic, living world in our heads. We model just enough. We model the world directly around the Characters in high detail. We have lower resolution models for the region around their current location (usually written down as we can't remember it all), and we might have static descriptions of the world beyond that. Disagree? OK, you referenced the Forgotten Realms, so how many orphans are there in Calimport at the time of your campaign, right now? I certainly couldn't tell you; I don't model the world in that much detail, and I would not believe you if you said you did.
That's a lot of work; I will never dispute that. It is more work than any Player who has never tried the hot-seat knows. But is it the full scope " ...from the wind that caresses a baby's cheek to the unfathomable depths of the ocean to the myriad races and species that populate the world to the unending cosmos and planes above"? Please.
You are not a God. You do not have the creative powers of one. You do not have the dictatorial moral authority of one over the gaming group.
GM'ing is not an onerous burden thrust upon you, whose acceptance gives the right to lord over your Players as compensation; you picked up the responsibilities and workload, because it is fun ( and if it's not, then why the hell are you doing it?! ).
You are not irreplaceable.
If you ( or I, or any GM ) walked away from the game, the game would halt. No arguments there. But that's a byproduct of the role you have, not of some special quality to you. In a similar manner, if my laptop died, my professional work would halt. But my laptop isn't inherently better, or elevated, or more important than I am to my career. Eventually, I'd get a new laptop, and my work would continue. It would be disruptive and inconvenient, but my laptop isn't my work. In a similar manner, if you walk away, someone would step into the role, or the members would find other Groups. You're not irreplaceable, even though your abdication would be inconvenient and disruptive. Neither am I. Neither is any other GM.
WIthout you ... there is still D&D. I repeat, there is still D&D.
If your Players are that bad, then educate your Players. Expect more from your Players. Encourage them to be better Players, and find ways for them to be that. And accept that what you want from your Players may not be something they're willing to learn, or willing to provide - and if that's the case then you and that/those Player(s) are just not compatible. At that point it's best to just ease them out to find a group & DM better suited to their personal style of fun, or you find a Group better suited to you. To quote Matt Colville, "not every band is Rush".
The GM is - indisputably - the Executive of the Game, and wields executive power over the game. But there are - at least - two models of executive power. In one, Management is there to dictate to people what they are going to be doing, what they can and cannot do, and the processes they're going to follow in doing it. In the other, you hire (or train) good people, educate them up into the role you want them to have in the organization, set the goals for the Enterprise, and allow people to propose and contribute strategies to the realization of those goals. In the first, you are the source of all ideas and control. In the latter, you still have to make the final decision; You have the right to make "the call" as to what the strategy will be, but you've got the work, ideas, creativity, and input of everyone under you supporting and contributing to that strategy. In the first model you have "staff". In the latter model you have a "team".
Do these models not sound familiar - say, perhaps as contradictory views on how to run a D&D group?
I know which model the family of companies I work for uses in its power structure, and it's the collaborative model.
I believe you would disagree that it's also a good fit for how to run a gaming group, and I don't have any desire or expectation of converting you. But given that the corporate group I work for does does $2B+ a year in business, I think that model works pretty well.
And it works pretty darn well for my table, as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
In the games I see, have played in, and have run, the games master or DM role is the most important. You have made a case that it is not and that to think or run games otherwise is tantamount to being an uncouth violator of the social contract. I disagree. Camelot might have had a Round Table, but there could be only one king.
Yeah, I can wax poetically as any creator is likely to do, but if it was never my intention to suggest I am at all times modelling my world on micro and macro levels with full fidelity and resolution. I was merely and rightly stating the difference in perspective. A player has to interpret what I present to them and form an story in their minds about that and act on it or not. I,as a DM, have to supply all of that detail, and then when plotting the intentions and actions of the meaningful players in their world do the same thing for those platonic entities. This is merely the story part of my job.
Players input that wonderful thing called "free will" or "choice" into the game. I like that. Just because I, to quote RDJ as Tony Stark "...just pay for everything and design everything, make everyone look cooler." doesn't mean that I don't want to watch them proceed through the world I have designed, and see how they deal with the challenges I have placed in front of their PCs. That is the reason I play TTRPGs. It is not tinpot dictatorial control I am advocating. I am strongly pushing back on the statement that there is in any way an equal placement at the table when TTRPGs are concerned. The effort and the requirements of the role make DMs the defacto leaders at the table.
Think about it. If there is interplayer strife who is called on to mediate? The DM.
The management of the table from who sits where and how the social contract is enforced falls on the DM in the vast majority of cases. You have even typed those statements in replies that I have seen in the over two years I have been reading the forums. Yes, there might be an occasional player that acts as an "enforcer' of the table or something if another player keeps forgetting the "be present- no phones at the table rule!" But again, most of that management stuff falls back on the DM, which only furthers my point that DMs possess a larger role than players.
Am I irreplaceable? In a way, yes. If I were to stop running my Scion game effective immediately. Scion the game system would continue (as you alluded to), but the game world I had crafted would end. Full Stop. If another person were to decide to take my "notes" and start running Scion with those players, it would not be *my* game. The D&DNA of it might be the same, but that new StoryGuide could not successfully pick my story line up and run with it as I would have intended. They would be crafting their own game. So yes my story, and you are correct I do use those terms possessively, is different than anyone else's and as such I am irreplaceable. Can the game go on? Yes but that requires some other person to rise to the challenge and cease being merely a player and create stories for their friends to partake in.
To reply to the OP There are a few things I would point out from my own experiences. I've been doing homebrew DMing for over a decade now and have developed a few habits.
The first is to never play with or work with another player who will 100% not compromise on their wants and needs. DnD is a social contract where all players agree to find the best possible way for them to have fun playing a game and that often means compromising on certain aspects of our own wants and needs. If your player truly decides what he wants and doesn't care how it affects the other players in the contract then he is a bad player and I wouldn't play with him.
Second is to be as accommodating as possible to a PC and how they want to interact with the world you are creating, but don't put in the work yourself. I've had players who really wanted to play something that didn't fit in with my setting and my response each time was the same. I send them the 20 30 pages of lore and setting info I have and tell them to read it all carefully and to then before session 0 send me alt least 3 full pages on how their concept can fit into the world I created. About half the time I end up with a player who takes the time really gets into it reads everything and come up with a concept that works and serves to make the world richer and better. Even if it takes a little more tweaking on my part I 100% say yes to these players. the other half of the time I don't get anything at all or maybe 2 or 3 sentences this is always a no if the player can't take the time to read and consider my creations I can't take the time to consider theirs. Try that with your player you just may find he's a great source for making your world richer and taking some of the burden of creation off you in the process.
Finally just because you let something exist or happen doesn't mean there won't be consequences in the game. I had a player once who insisted on playing a drow but wouldn't accept that they and had disadvantage in sunlight and would argue it every time until she was asked to leave the group. by all means, let him be a skeleton. Explain to him how he will be responded to in the world and then don't back down respond to him in that way every time, consistency is key to a believable setting. The other part of this is playing your NPCs and villans like they are real people and have real lives and motivations of their own and not just there to give quests to the party. Your NPCs have their own wants and should pursue them your villans want to win. Don't let players especially pushy ones steam roll everything to suit their whims. This is DnD, not Skyrim
But there are - at least - two models of executive power. In one, Management is there to dictate to people what they are going to be doing, what they can and cannot do, and the processes they're going to follow in doing it. In the other, you hire (or train) good people, educate them up into the role you want them to have in the organization, set the goals for the Enterprise, and allow people to propose and contribute strategies to the realization of those goals. In the first, you are the source of all ideas and control. In the latter, you still have to make the final decision; You have the right to make "the call" as to what the strategy will be, but you've got the work, ideas, creativity, and input of everyone under you supporting and contributing to that strategy. In the first model you have "staff". In the latter model you have a "team".
True, but if one of your team members refuses to do anything except bake cupcakes, because they want a job baking cupcakes, but the company is an IT outsourcing company...
In both of your examples, the executive is more important than all the other people in the team. They have sole authority for policy decisions.
As far as the gaming discussion in this thread, the point is "dealbreakers". If there is a conflict of dealbreaker issues then one person has to leave the table. There is no other way of dealing with it. No negotiation, no compromise. That is, after all, what "deal-breaker" means.
For example, a personal deal-breaker for me: I don't GM evil characters. If you want to play an evil character then find another table.
Rules and rule-sources are often deal-breakers, even though we don't think of them using that phrase. For example, if the GMing is playing D&D 5E, it is sort of a deal-breaker if you want to play Savage Worlds. If the GM has said "no UA" then you can't play that psionic mystic you like so much. Same for "No Volo's" and a tabaxi.
If the issue is not a deal-breaker, then the table should discuss. Ask questions, get ideas, suggest alternatives. However, everyone needs to understand that after discussion, compromise might not be possible. There might just be no place for a sea elf in a desert campaign, or a drow elf in a world where the Underdark doesn't exist. If four players refuse to adventure with a kender, the fifth player might be out of luck in their choice of race.
In the OP's example, discuss it at the table. Ask the player questions like,
"So, how do you imagine this going, being a skeleton in a world where all skeletons are evil? What role is your character going to have in this world? In this party?"
"What are your plans for healing this skeleton of yours, after the townsfolk chased it out of town with pitchforks and torches?"
But there are - at least - two models of executive power. In one, Management is there to dictate to people what they are going to be doing, what they can and cannot do, and the processes they're going to follow in doing it. In the other, you hire (or train) good people, educate them up into the role you want them to have in the organization, set the goals for the Enterprise, and allow people to propose and contribute strategies to the realization of those goals. In the first, you are the source of all ideas and control. In the latter, you still have to make the final decision; You have the right to make "the call" as to what the strategy will be, but you've got the work, ideas, creativity, and input of everyone under you supporting and contributing to that strategy. In the first model you have "staff". In the latter model you have a "team".
True, but if one of your team members refuses to do anything except bake cupcakes, because they want a job baking cupcakes, but the company is an IT outsourcing company...
'
If only I'd made comments along the lines of the Player needing to collaborate and cooperate along with the GM, and that I'm not advocating the GM roll over for each and every Player whim... oh wait ...
It really comes down to two stances here:
I have complete control over the game. I say what gets included in the game. I say how everything is run. I am the most important person at the table. I don't care what my Players want; the Players need to tow my line. I have no obligation to work with the Players' wants, and find ways to work with them to incorporate their ideas into the game. They'll play the material I want prepare for them; if it doesn't suit them, there are free to find another table,
I have management oversight over the game. I have the right and responsibility to shape and adapt ideas to make the overall game structure and world logically, narratively, and thematically consistent - but I'm open to at least trying to incorporate as much of the Players' creativity into the game. I'm the person who puts in the most work at the table, and so I have the most creative control - and while I'm the one who makes the final choices, I don't feel that I own the game, so I like feedback from the Players, and I at least try to listen to what they want, and try to work with their ideas. I feel I have an obligation to listen to the Group as a whole, and find the best possible game, which the most people at the table - including me - will enjoy.
I won't say everyone who has the first attitude is a ego-stroking self-important jackass - but my experience is that every ego-stroking self-important jackass I've met - personally, professionally, politically, or at the gaming table - has had that attitude ( or some variant on it ).
As I DM, I have no interest in being that much of a jackass ( I'm enough of a jackass already, thanks ) - so I endeavour to listen to my Players and try and incorporate their ideas and creativity into the Game. I do not allow them to run roughshod over the Narrative, or the Campaign Themes, nor the Tone - but I'm reasonably creative, so I can usually incorporate at least some aspect of their ideas ( usually after discussing with them what elements of their idea is actually important to them). Sometimes that just not possible - especially if the Player is completely unwilling to compromise on aspects of their idea which don't fit the Campaign's Themes or Tone (as in the OP of this thread) - in which case I won't allow the idea, but I'll at least try to work with the Player first.
As a Player, I have absolutely zero interest in stroking off some tinpot dictator of a DM's ego, at the cost of my fun, or my creativity. I recognize that it's the game is a collaborative venture. I have to work within the bounds of what other people - including and especially the DM - want from the game. I recognize I can't have things the way I'd like them all the time, but I'm pretty self-aware of which aspects of my ideas are core concepts, and which aspects are less important details, so I'm willing to alter and shift my ideas around to make them acceptable to the overall Campaign. And I accept that occasionally, what I want, just won't fit, and the DM will decide not to incorporate them. That's life. But a DM shut down my ideas out of hand because I'm a lowly Player and I'm interfering with their great "creative vision"? They can fold their Campaign notes until they're all sharp corners and stuff them somewhere delicate.
For me, I willnot place myself under the decisions of any person who treats me as personally inferior. Someone who has organizational authority over me? Sure - I work in a management hierarchy, people have different roles at different levels, and have the right to assign tasks to others below them in the structure, the right to expect things from them, and the right to make decisions about how the organization under them is structured. That's just how organizations work. But hold me personally in contempt and you can cram your job - or your Campaign. And if I won't accept that, I do my damnedest to not do that to others.
If you want to run your table under the first approach, and you find Players who are willing to put up that prima donna attitude, well ... it's your game. If - as a Player - you're willing to let someone treat that way ... I'm sorry.
But as I said, any gaming group that has a DM who is that completely controlling, and actually considers themselves personally elevated and actually personally better than their Players - I wouldn't walk away from, I'd f'ing sprint.
Full stop.
Edit: the post I was responding to most immediately got edited as I was typing. Let me address the changes.
We don't actually disagree on the "dealbreaker" concept. I have repeatedly advocated DM/Player negotiation on creative differences, and as "executive oversight" the DM has the final call. If they Player won't negotiate changes in good faith, then that's too bad for them.
What I'm objecting to is the idea that the DM has the right to not negotiate changes in good faith - rejecting Player input out of hand, for no other reason than they are the DM, and therefore deserving of more consideration than the Players.
I don't run Evil Campaigns either. If all my Players came to me a demanded an R-rated, ultra-violent campaign, I wouldn't run it for them - but I won't tell them to sit down, shut up, I'm the DM and we're doing ToA. I might say, "you guys have fun, but it's not for me, so I won't be participating. If you can find a GM who will run that for you, go for it".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
But if they want to run around openly as undead, then no. And the comments about how it might be better to just ease them out of the group if they're not willing to cooperate or collaborate, still stands.
He does in fact want to play openly as undead.
You could always point out what's likely to happen the first time he meets a good-aligned cleric... :)
I have complete control over the game. I say what gets included in the game. I say how everything is run. I am the most important person at the table. I don't care what my Players want; the Players need to tow my line. I have no obligation to work with the Players' wants, and find ways to work with them to incorporate their ideas into the game. They'll play the material I want prepare for them; if it doesn't suit them, there are free to find another table,
I have management oversight over the game. I have the right and responsibility to shape and adapt ideas to make the overall game structure and world logically, narratively, and thematically consistent - but I'm open to at least trying to incorporate as much of the Players' creativity into the game. I'm the person who puts in the most work at the table, and so I have the most creative control - and while I'm the one who makes the final choices, I don't feel that I own the game, so I like feedback from the Players, and I at least try to listen to what they want, and try to work with their ideas. I feel I have an obligation to listen to the Group as a whole, and find the best possible game, which the most people at the table - including me - will enjoy.
I think you missed one as you enumerated your list.
3. I have control over the game as the social contract places the majority of the work for development and conducting the game upon me. I say what gets included in the game, because I am the one responsible for presenting interesting and engaging material forth for all participants in the game including myself. I am the most important person at the table because without me there simply would not be a game to play in. I do care what my Players want; but the Players need to follow the guidelines as established when everyone agreed to play the game as proposed. I am under no obligation to include carte blanche the Players' wants, but because you are a friend I will try to find ways to work with you to incorporate at least some of your ideas into the game provided they fit with the established themes; ie you cannot play a polymorphed Dragon or something like a Warforged if not in Ebberon. My players will play the material I want to prepare for them; if it doesn't suit them, there are free to find another table, simply because I am not going to work this hard and put in that many hours developing material that either disinterests me or I actively dislike. If the players had other ideas they had time to speak up and offer alternatives to my proposal before. Moreover, once committing to the game, especially if it is a published adventure, the players are not allowed to drag the entire thing off course on whim. For example, if I state I am willing to run Storm King's Thunder, the Players cannot decide to become dungeon delvers exploring lost ruins in Amn. If they do not wish to do this, I will stop the adventure and inform them that they either need to stay "on book" as it were, or one of the players can become DM for the party because I have no preparation or interest in running that adventure.
As an aside, I do not look down on players. I do not however equate what they do with what I do. The roles are fundamentally different and unbalanced. Even though running a PC can be complicated, especially at the higher Tiers, it does not compare to the amount to time and effort even a mediocre DM puts in to prepare for and run a session. As such, I will not back down from my statement that I feel offended when the role of DM is lowered to "just another player at the table".
look at the new UA subclass for rogue just came out yesterday. it's basically undead but pretty low key and might not be detectable by normal means. depending on how you can work it in and his back story this may be a great compromise. but he would have to play a rogue
Having spent the weekend thinking about this, I've got my position down to the following.
I put more time and money and effort into this game than my players. They have to keep track on one character; I have to keep track of hundreds to thousands. I have to worry about encounter difficulty and game pace. I download and/or purchase modules and worldbooks. I read and/or write modules and encounters. I draw maps (on the battlemat I bought). I set the tone and themes of the game. I wrangle the players and arbitrate their disagreements.
I claim a reward for all of this this - that of more creative control and a veto vote.
And as a player, I of course give that consideration to the person sitting behind the GM screen.
Honestly I would just tell the player that you're requiring the players to abide by certain content rules and restrictions. E.g. If it's not in the Player's Handbook or Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, it's not allowed. To paraphrase Zee Bashew (DND YouTuber), if the idea of conforming their character to the play style of the group just makes their skin crawl, maybe they just have the wrong group.
This was something I learned the hard way. My first time ever playing DND, my roommate was the DM. By the end of session 2 I realized I DESPISED him as a DM, and I didn't even have anyone to compare him against. I tried to maintain face and enjoy myself anyways, but by 4 months into the campaign our personal relationship had just completely rotted away. We were going to have some conflict anyways (most roommates do) and probably could have overcome that, but our natural conflict combined with the conflict that came from me trying to force something to work that just wasn't going to, this made it terrible for us. Needless to say, I quit the campaign when the semester ended. Good news: we're friends again. We've never talked about it, but I think we have this unspoken understanding that we will never play DND together again and that it's okay. The moral of the story: you can still be friends even though you want to play the game together, but want to play it differently, so you just don't play. Hopefully, if you want to maintain this relationship, there's more to this friendship than just playing DND together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alright - if you can fail to take offense at my post ( and I can definitely get overheated, so my sincere apologies there. Sorry. ) - I can do the same. I actually didn't find your post offensive or disrespectful.
With the caveat that we may just have to agree to disagree ...
I didn't find your post offensive or disrespectful, but I do think your opinions and the attitudes exhibited towards your Players are dangerous. Perhaps you can balance that stance without it going to your head and you being a "dictatorial *******"; I can't tell, I've never sat at your table. But I've been playing RPGs off-and-on since the days of the red/blue D&D boxed sets in the 70s, and I've seen a lot of GMs fall prey to exactly that, becoming little tinpot dictator prima donnas who throw temper tantrums when anything comes out of a Player's imagination which doesn't match their personal creative vision.
The GM role incorporates a level of work and responsibility greater than that of any one Player; we don't disagree there whatsoever. But it doesn't convey a level of authority over anything other than the initial composition of the Adventure, the adjudication of the Rules, and control of Pacing & Tone. It does not convey any authority over the social contract of the Group, it does not allow you to dictate the play style of your Players to them, and it does not allow you to automatically veto their imaginations (the best it conveys there is the right to adjust and incorporate it into the game in a reasonable and thematically consistent manner, vetoing only when that's not possible - as seems to be the case with the OP). It conveys more responsibility, and therefore more rights for decision making, only over some aspects of the game.
It absolutely doesn't make you, personally, a cut above a mere Player.
Even in the composition and flow of the Game, the Players are not there merely to jump through the hoops that the GM has provided for them. Sorry - but no single human being has all the answers, and doesn't automatically always have all the best creative ideas. They just don't. Almost everyone has something to contribute. I have freely taken ideas from the Players, and even from Player conversations in game, and used them as a creative springboard to narrative places that I wouldn't have gotten to relying solely on my own imagination. Nor could they have gone there themselves - only by me covertly collaborating with their imagination, did the Game get to where it went. If you can't - or won't - improve and change up your game on the fly, without violating consistency, based on external inspiration - even from your Players - then maybe that's something you can improve upon, otherwise you are short-changing your Game, and your Players, by providing less of a game than it could have been.
I disagree that the DM embodies the rest of the entire universe - to paraphrase you. Sorry, no one is a supercomputer, and we don't hold an entire, dynamic, living world in our heads. We model just enough. We model the world directly around the Characters in high detail. We have lower resolution models for the region around their current location (usually written down as we can't remember it all), and we might have static descriptions of the world beyond that. Disagree? OK, you referenced the Forgotten Realms, so how many orphans are there in Calimport at the time of your campaign, right now? I certainly couldn't tell you; I don't model the world in that much detail, and I would not believe you if you said you did.
That's a lot of work; I will never dispute that. It is more work than any Player who has never tried the hot-seat knows. But is it the full scope " ...from the wind that caresses a baby's cheek to the unfathomable depths of the ocean to the myriad races and species that populate the world to the unending cosmos and planes above"? Please.
You are not a God. You do not have the creative powers of one. You do not have the dictatorial moral authority of one over the gaming group.
GM'ing is not an onerous burden thrust upon you, whose acceptance gives the right to lord over your Players as compensation; you picked up the responsibilities and workload, because it is fun ( and if it's not, then why the hell are you doing it?! ).
You are not irreplaceable.
If you ( or I, or any GM ) walked away from the game, the game would halt. No arguments there. But that's a byproduct of the role you have, not of some special quality to you. In a similar manner, if my laptop died, my professional work would halt. But my laptop isn't inherently better, or elevated, or more important than I am to my career. Eventually, I'd get a new laptop, and my work would continue. It would be disruptive and inconvenient, but my laptop isn't my work. In a similar manner, if you walk away, someone would step into the role, or the members would find other Groups. You're not irreplaceable, even though your abdication would be inconvenient and disruptive. Neither am I. Neither is any other GM.
WIthout you ... there is still D&D. I repeat, there is still D&D.
If your Players are that bad, then educate your Players. Expect more from your Players. Encourage them to be better Players, and find ways for them to be that. And accept that what you want from your Players may not be something they're willing to learn, or willing to provide - and if that's the case then you and that/those Player(s) are just not compatible. At that point it's best to just ease them out to find a group & DM better suited to their personal style of fun, or you find a Group better suited to you. To quote Matt Colville, "not every band is Rush".
The GM is - indisputably - the Executive of the Game, and wields executive power over the game. But there are - at least - two models of executive power. In one, Management is there to dictate to people what they are going to be doing, what they can and cannot do, and the processes they're going to follow in doing it. In the other, you hire (or train) good people, educate them up into the role you want them to have in the organization, set the goals for the Enterprise, and allow people to propose and contribute strategies to the realization of those goals. In the first, you are the source of all ideas and control. In the latter, you still have to make the final decision; You have the right to make "the call" as to what the strategy will be, but you've got the work, ideas, creativity, and input of everyone under you supporting and contributing to that strategy. In the first model you have "staff". In the latter model you have a "team".
Do these models not sound familiar - say, perhaps as contradictory views on how to run a D&D group?
I know which model the family of companies I work for uses in its power structure, and it's the collaborative model.
I believe you would disagree that it's also a good fit for how to run a gaming group, and I don't have any desire or expectation of converting you. But given that the corporate group I work for does does $2B+ a year in business, I think that model works pretty well.
And it works pretty darn well for my table, as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
In the games I see, have played in, and have run, the games master or DM role is the most important. You have made a case that it is not and that to think or run games otherwise is tantamount to being an uncouth violator of the social contract. I disagree. Camelot might have had a Round Table, but there could be only one king.
Yeah, I can wax poetically as any creator is likely to do, but if it was never my intention to suggest I am at all times modelling my world on micro and macro levels with full fidelity and resolution. I was merely and rightly stating the difference in perspective. A player has to interpret what I present to them and form an story in their minds about that and act on it or not. I,as a DM, have to supply all of that detail, and then when plotting the intentions and actions of the meaningful players in their world do the same thing for those platonic entities. This is merely the story part of my job.
Players input that wonderful thing called "free will" or "choice" into the game. I like that. Just because I, to quote RDJ as Tony Stark "...just pay for everything and design everything, make everyone look cooler." doesn't mean that I don't want to watch them proceed through the world I have designed, and see how they deal with the challenges I have placed in front of their PCs. That is the reason I play TTRPGs. It is not tinpot dictatorial control I am advocating. I am strongly pushing back on the statement that there is in any way an equal placement at the table when TTRPGs are concerned. The effort and the requirements of the role make DMs the defacto leaders at the table.
Think about it. If there is interplayer strife who is called on to mediate? The DM.
The management of the table from who sits where and how the social contract is enforced falls on the DM in the vast majority of cases. You have even typed those statements in replies that I have seen in the over two years I have been reading the forums. Yes, there might be an occasional player that acts as an "enforcer' of the table or something if another player keeps forgetting the "be present- no phones at the table rule!" But again, most of that management stuff falls back on the DM, which only furthers my point that DMs possess a larger role than players.
Am I irreplaceable? In a way, yes. If I were to stop running my Scion game effective immediately. Scion the game system would continue (as you alluded to), but the game world I had crafted would end. Full Stop. If another person were to decide to take my "notes" and start running Scion with those players, it would not be *my* game. The D&DNA of it might be the same, but that new StoryGuide could not successfully pick my story line up and run with it as I would have intended. They would be crafting their own game. So yes my story, and you are correct I do use those terms possessively, is different than anyone else's and as such I am irreplaceable. Can the game go on? Yes but that requires some other person to rise to the challenge and cease being merely a player and create stories for their friends to partake in.
To reply to the OP There are a few things I would point out from my own experiences. I've been doing homebrew DMing for over a decade now and have developed a few habits.
The first is to never play with or work with another player who will 100% not compromise on their wants and needs. DnD is a social contract where all players agree to find the best possible way for them to have fun playing a game and that often means compromising on certain aspects of our own wants and needs. If your player truly decides what he wants and doesn't care how it affects the other players in the contract then he is a bad player and I wouldn't play with him.
Second is to be as accommodating as possible to a PC and how they want to interact with the world you are creating, but don't put in the work yourself. I've had players who really wanted to play something that didn't fit in with my setting and my response each time was the same. I send them the 20 30 pages of lore and setting info I have and tell them to read it all carefully and to then before session 0 send me alt least 3 full pages on how their concept can fit into the world I created. About half the time I end up with a player who takes the time really gets into it reads everything and come up with a concept that works and serves to make the world richer and better. Even if it takes a little more tweaking on my part I 100% say yes to these players. the other half of the time I don't get anything at all or maybe 2 or 3 sentences this is always a no if the player can't take the time to read and consider my creations I can't take the time to consider theirs. Try that with your player you just may find he's a great source for making your world richer and taking some of the burden of creation off you in the process.
Finally just because you let something exist or happen doesn't mean there won't be consequences in the game. I had a player once who insisted on playing a drow but wouldn't accept that they and had disadvantage in sunlight and would argue it every time until she was asked to leave the group. by all means, let him be a skeleton. Explain to him how he will be responded to in the world and then don't back down respond to him in that way every time, consistency is key to a believable setting. The other part of this is playing your NPCs and villans like they are real people and have real lives and motivations of their own and not just there to give quests to the party. Your NPCs have their own wants and should pursue them your villans want to win. Don't let players especially pushy ones steam roll everything to suit their whims. This is DnD, not Skyrim
True, but if one of your team members refuses to do anything except bake cupcakes, because they want a job baking cupcakes, but the company is an IT outsourcing company...
In both of your examples, the executive is more important than all the other people in the team. They have sole authority for policy decisions.
As far as the gaming discussion in this thread, the point is "dealbreakers". If there is a conflict of dealbreaker issues then one person has to leave the table. There is no other way of dealing with it. No negotiation, no compromise. That is, after all, what "deal-breaker" means.
For example, a personal deal-breaker for me: I don't GM evil characters. If you want to play an evil character then find another table.
Rules and rule-sources are often deal-breakers, even though we don't think of them using that phrase. For example, if the GMing is playing D&D 5E, it is sort of a deal-breaker if you want to play Savage Worlds. If the GM has said "no UA" then you can't play that psionic mystic you like so much. Same for "No Volo's" and a tabaxi.
If the issue is not a deal-breaker, then the table should discuss. Ask questions, get ideas, suggest alternatives. However, everyone needs to understand that after discussion, compromise might not be possible. There might just be no place for a sea elf in a desert campaign, or a drow elf in a world where the Underdark doesn't exist. If four players refuse to adventure with a kender, the fifth player might be out of luck in their choice of race.
In the OP's example, discuss it at the table. Ask the player questions like,
"So, how do you imagine this going, being a skeleton in a world where all skeletons are evil? What role is your character going to have in this world? In this party?"
"What are your plans for healing this skeleton of yours, after the townsfolk chased it out of town with pitchforks and torches?"
If only I'd made comments along the lines of the Player needing to collaborate and cooperate along with the GM, and that I'm not advocating the GM roll over for each and every Player whim... oh wait ...
It really comes down to two stances here:
I won't say everyone who has the first attitude is a ego-stroking self-important jackass - but my experience is that every ego-stroking self-important jackass I've met - personally, professionally, politically, or at the gaming table - has had that attitude ( or some variant on it ).
As I DM, I have no interest in being that much of a jackass ( I'm enough of a jackass already, thanks ) - so I endeavour to listen to my Players and try and incorporate their ideas and creativity into the Game. I do not allow them to run roughshod over the Narrative, or the Campaign Themes, nor the Tone - but I'm reasonably creative, so I can usually incorporate at least some aspect of their ideas ( usually after discussing with them what elements of their idea is actually important to them). Sometimes that just not possible - especially if the Player is completely unwilling to compromise on aspects of their idea which don't fit the Campaign's Themes or Tone (as in the OP of this thread) - in which case I won't allow the idea, but I'll at least try to work with the Player first.
As a Player, I have absolutely zero interest in stroking off some tinpot dictator of a DM's ego, at the cost of my fun, or my creativity. I recognize that it's the game is a collaborative venture. I have to work within the bounds of what other people - including and especially the DM - want from the game. I recognize I can't have things the way I'd like them all the time, but I'm pretty self-aware of which aspects of my ideas are core concepts, and which aspects are less important details, so I'm willing to alter and shift my ideas around to make them acceptable to the overall Campaign. And I accept that occasionally, what I want, just won't fit, and the DM will decide not to incorporate them. That's life. But a DM shut down my ideas out of hand because I'm a lowly Player and I'm interfering with their great "creative vision"? They can fold their Campaign notes until they're all sharp corners and stuff them somewhere delicate.
For me, I will not place myself under the decisions of any person who treats me as personally inferior. Someone who has organizational authority over me? Sure - I work in a management hierarchy, people have different roles at different levels, and have the right to assign tasks to others below them in the structure, the right to expect things from them, and the right to make decisions about how the organization under them is structured. That's just how organizations work. But hold me personally in contempt and you can cram your job - or your Campaign. And if I won't accept that, I do my damnedest to not do that to others.
If you want to run your table under the first approach, and you find Players who are willing to put up that prima donna attitude, well ... it's your game. If - as a Player - you're willing to let someone treat that way ... I'm sorry.
But as I said, any gaming group that has a DM who is that completely controlling, and actually considers themselves personally elevated and actually personally better than their Players - I wouldn't walk away from, I'd f'ing sprint.
Full stop.
Edit: the post I was responding to most immediately got edited as I was typing. Let me address the changes.
We don't actually disagree on the "dealbreaker" concept. I have repeatedly advocated DM/Player negotiation on creative differences, and as "executive oversight" the DM has the final call. If they Player won't negotiate changes in good faith, then that's too bad for them.
What I'm objecting to is the idea that the DM has the right to not negotiate changes in good faith - rejecting Player input out of hand, for no other reason than they are the DM, and therefore deserving of more consideration than the Players.
I don't run Evil Campaigns either. If all my Players came to me a demanded an R-rated, ultra-violent campaign, I wouldn't run it for them - but I won't tell them to sit down, shut up, I'm the DM and we're doing ToA. I might say, "you guys have fun, but it's not for me, so I won't be participating. If you can find a GM who will run that for you, go for it".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You could always point out what's likely to happen the first time he meets a good-aligned cleric... :)
I think you missed one as you enumerated your list.
3. I have control over the game as the social contract places the majority of the work for development and conducting the game upon me. I say what gets included in the game, because I am the one responsible for presenting interesting and engaging material forth for all participants in the game including myself. I am the most important person at the table because without me there simply would not be a game to play in. I do care what my Players want; but the Players need to follow the guidelines as established when everyone agreed to play the game as proposed. I am under no obligation to include carte blanche the Players' wants, but because you are a friend I will try to find ways to work with you to incorporate at least some of your ideas into the game provided they fit with the established themes; ie you cannot play a polymorphed Dragon or something like a Warforged if not in Ebberon. My players will play the material I want to prepare for them; if it doesn't suit them, there are free to find another table, simply because I am not going to work this hard and put in that many hours developing material that either disinterests me or I actively dislike. If the players had other ideas they had time to speak up and offer alternatives to my proposal before. Moreover, once committing to the game, especially if it is a published adventure, the players are not allowed to drag the entire thing off course on whim. For example, if I state I am willing to run Storm King's Thunder, the Players cannot decide to become dungeon delvers exploring lost ruins in Amn. If they do not wish to do this, I will stop the adventure and inform them that they either need to stay "on book" as it were, or one of the players can become DM for the party because I have no preparation or interest in running that adventure.
As an aside, I do not look down on players. I do not however equate what they do with what I do. The roles are fundamentally different and unbalanced. Even though running a PC can be complicated, especially at the higher Tiers, it does not compare to the amount to time and effort even a mediocre DM puts in to prepare for and run a session. As such, I will not back down from my statement that I feel offended when the role of DM is lowered to "just another player at the table".
“Sure, you can be a skeleton.”
Party goes into town, guards see skeleton “undead! Kill it!”
Reroll something not stupid
look at the new UA subclass for rogue just came out yesterday. it's basically undead but pretty low key and might not be detectable by normal means. depending on how you can work it in and his back story this may be a great compromise. but he would have to play a rogue
Having spent the weekend thinking about this, I've got my position down to the following.
I put more time and money and effort into this game than my players. They have to keep track on one character; I have to keep track of hundreds to thousands. I have to worry about encounter difficulty and game pace. I download and/or purchase modules and worldbooks. I read and/or write modules and encounters. I draw maps (on the battlemat I bought). I set the tone and themes of the game. I wrangle the players and arbitrate their disagreements.
I claim a reward for all of this this - that of more creative control and a veto vote.
And as a player, I of course give that consideration to the person sitting behind the GM screen.
In regards to the original post...
Honestly I would just tell the player that you're requiring the players to abide by certain content rules and restrictions. E.g. If it's not in the Player's Handbook or Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, it's not allowed. To paraphrase Zee Bashew (DND YouTuber), if the idea of conforming their character to the play style of the group just makes their skin crawl, maybe they just have the wrong group.
This was something I learned the hard way. My first time ever playing DND, my roommate was the DM. By the end of session 2 I realized I DESPISED him as a DM, and I didn't even have anyone to compare him against. I tried to maintain face and enjoy myself anyways, but by 4 months into the campaign our personal relationship had just completely rotted away. We were going to have some conflict anyways (most roommates do) and probably could have overcome that, but our natural conflict combined with the conflict that came from me trying to force something to work that just wasn't going to, this made it terrible for us. Needless to say, I quit the campaign when the semester ended. Good news: we're friends again. We've never talked about it, but I think we have this unspoken understanding that we will never play DND together again and that it's okay. The moral of the story: you can still be friends even though you want to play the game together, but want to play it differently, so you just don't play. Hopefully, if you want to maintain this relationship, there's more to this friendship than just playing DND together.