I am absolutely held hostage by what my group wants to play. I've run almost nothing but World of Darkness games for like 8 years straight. I convinced them to try a game of Shadowrun and a game of Legend of the Five Rings in there, but neither stuck with them. They are somewhat willing to give a new game a shot, but have so far not liked anything new. Further, they absolutely refuse to play any version of D&D or Pathfinder.
I had to find a group on the side to run my favorite RPG (Savage Worlds), and I'm trying the new gaming store that opened near me to find someone to play D&D/Pathfinder with (the co-owner suggested he'd run a game, but that fell through), but it's not looking good.
As a GM do you ever feel as if your ability to set parameters for your game are held hostage to what a player wants particularly if they are the 4th player you need for your game?
I'm just curious what are your thoughts?
Yes, but it's generally natural and cooperative. I had a TPK in a game I was running and excited about. When I started discussing how my players could make a group of new PCs to get back in the action, two of them mentioned they weren't really interested in continuing the campaign. All but one of the other players agreed. So we switched to something else everyone enjoys--even me--and I'm *very* glad that they spoke up, rather than limping along in a campaign they didn't much like.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've so far only GM'd PFS, so it's just a question of if the PC is legal or not. If it's illegal, I have no choice but to nix it, no matter how cool it is. If it's legal, I have no choice but to allow it, no matter how stupid it is.
And frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have, sometimes, in the past. I really try to use as few pieces of source material as possible, and I have players that CATCH'EM ALL, that is, collect a lot of books and want to use what they've bought. I allowed to a limited degree some material from the "Complete" 3.5 books once. I probably wouldn't do it again, as when we converted to Pathfinder, I found those supplements really weren't necessary to build the concepts desired and just made a mess of conversion. I also am more likely to allow stuff with players I trust and have played a lot with than someone I barely know, because I know if or when they will or won't exploit something.
I have had people turn down games because I wouldn't use a given book, or I've had to turn down players because they insisted. The "can I use" question IS tiresome--especially because it makes so much more work for me in terms of research and prep and making sure I understand how something works that I otherwise wouldn't have to bother with. It is probably without question and by far, my least favorite part of GMing, and the one thing I dread when I start a new campaign (and the one thing that makes me hesitate before I decide to run a new campaign).
That said, I'm more assertive and less of a pushover than I used to be in my old age, so I have much less of a problem saying no than I used to.
As far as "needing to make up numbers" -- a LOT of my friends are gamers, and I am in no shortage of finding potential players. If someone doesn't want to play because of my parameters, I can easily find someone else. And worse comes to worse, I'd MUCH rather play with 2 or 3 people than add a 4th or 5th player who's going to be problematic. It's MUCH easier to set the CR lower than deal with a player who's out to ruin your and everyone else's fun.
I dont feel held hostage. I think maybe years ago I did, but I and everyone else in my gaming group have matured some. We are far more on the same page and its a far more cooperative thing. The fact that we are all running or at least partially running published adventures now is I think a big part of it. If your dm is running kingmaker, you know what to expect, similarly with me running the slumbering tsar.
|
Great question! I usually tailor my campaigns to the players playing but I refuse to allow a player to tell me how I should play an NPC or what NPCs to include. In order to ensure I am being fair as a GM I publish a player guide similar to the one Paizo publishes. I have been doing this for over 25 years and it is the best way for the players to make characters that will fit into the world.
You are not obligated to change your world to suit your players. Your players should adapt. Part of playing RPGs is to be challenged. The easiest way to challenge a group is to present monsters and NPCs who take advantage of the players weaknesses. For example, if the Ranger has favored enemy of Human, create a Human Ranger with his race as a favored enemy.
If your group prefers to have their ego stroked rather than their minds challenged an RPG is not the game for them...perhaps you could suggest something like single player risk where they are sure to win!
|
|
Not for me, as a matter of fact its nearly the opposite for me. I've GM'd for my group since we were in grade 8 (many many moons ago now). I tended to be the one who discovered new systems and then encouraged the lads to play those.
We are lucky in that for us the enjoyment comes from the plots and encounters, rather than any one particular system. As for games themselves, my players are also mature enough to understand that sometimes things just don't work out their way and they have to deal with it.
However, I did take up gming 4th edition last year but only half my regular group took that up. Luckily I was able to recruit two new folks for that campaign so I could try the system. I love it as far as GMing goes, and the guys who play it with me regularly also love it.
We play Pathfinder alternate weeks and those guys love that system as well. All up, we treat the game as a group of equals trying to have fun, rather than a group of folk trying to milk the most power for their characters possible.
Cheers.
I've had a few players attempt to inform me how a game is supposed to go, based upon what they remember from their childhood. And after listening to a few sessions worth of them continuously telling me I didn't know what I was doing because I wasn't forcing the other players to play the way they wanted them played I simply disbanded the group. As a GM you cannot run a group with folks who think they are going to inform you of how to run the game. It's easier to rebuild a playgroup than mend hurt feelings amongst players because you allowed a player to ruin it for everyone.
|
The PCs I want to play are the hostages. I'm more like a conscript. It seems, no matter where I move, there are always dozens of players and no GMs. When I do find a GM, it eventually gets out that I've run a game or two and suddenly I'm the new full-time GM. Then, my players only let me see my personal characters only after I've negotiated terms, typically at a rate of one opportunity for me to play a character for two sessions in exchange for 10-15 levels of XP, 50 Million GP in loot and a dragon waiting for them at the end of the adventure.
My players are apparently either terrorists or bank robbers.
There were a few times I've felt held hostage, but it never lasted for very long. Honestly I'm pretty open. If it's not in a book I own (and I have a lot of books) then I want to see it and read it over. Usually, unless it's glaringly overpowered, I'm willing to allow it. That being said, I'm usually very upfront at the start of the campaign as to what I will allow and what I won't. Often times there is no need to ask, because the answers in print right in front of you. I want this to be a fun experience for everybody and I encourage options, but not at the expense of the other players fun and my own fun.
I don't think I've ever seen the "GM hostage" situation, personally. In most cases I can remember, the GM has offered to run a game and the players have joined up (or not) based on the GM's offer. The remainder have been cases where the GM freely offered to run anything the players wanted.
I should note, however, that I haven't really been involved with a long term (i.e. more than a single campaign) gaming group.
|
|
Not really; if I ever feel like I'm being held hostage by my players, it is usually because I'll be a victim of my own success, in a manner of speaking, because I'll grow tired of running a campaign but my players will still be enjoying it and want to continue and so I'll feel obliged to continue to run it.
Actually, this is more-or-less exactly what is happening in my Kingmaker campaign right now; I am growing tired of it as they are right at the end of Book 3, but the players (well some of them) are bought into the campaign, and we have about 3 semesters of weekly sessions behind us.
No, and if I did start feeling like a hostage I know that then it would be time for me to walk away from that group.
I am having a small issue with the current group in as far that the game runs perhaps much more slowly than I might like. However, it gives me time to prepare things, and play up some of the NPC's etc. I turn it into my favour.
Other than that time I had a paranoid player who I wanted to kick out, but didn't want to lose his sister...no.
In fact I sometimes wish my players would give me a little campaign direction.
I never feel held hostage by my players, and I think this becomes even more so the case the older I get.
For one thing, I know a LOT more gamers today than I did even five years ago - and if I really want to run a particular game, I can find somebody who will try it for at least a single session (usually longer).
For another, I love fantasy RPGs, and so do most of my players - to the point where when we do foray into modern, horror, or cyberpunk settings, we often find ourselves getting bored with it in a handful of weeks or months and saying, "Let's play Pathfinder/D&D/C&C".
And ultimately, being a GM, although carrying a certain amount of responsibility to show your players a good time, does not preclude you from having a good time yourself. If I do not enjoy running a game, whether because of the subject matter or system or the people with whom I am playing, then I examine that situation and assess what I need to do to make it fun for me.
I'm doing that right now in two respects, in fact: I'm realizing that running games for high-level Pathfinder players (meaning, to me, higher than about 12th level) is just more work on a week to week basis than I really enjoy doing to make it both challenging AND involving. I've also been running 4E for a group of four 6th-level PCs, and finding that I don't like the amount of time a single combat eats up, and they don't like how much of their daily resources are devoured by encounters that should be level-appropriate by RAW but really aren't in execution.
In the first situation, the solution for me has been a system change: if my players want high-level games, I'll run one in C&C where the workload feels less cumbersome to me in terms of prep time. In the second, it's been a matter of deciding that if I want to make the 4E game fun, I'm going to need to disregard a lot of the conventional wisdom about how well the game runs using RAW. That will require more work on my part, but not so much that I just plain don't want to do it.
If you feel held hostage by your player's desires, it's probably because what they enjoy playing isn't what you enjoy running - and that's when you need to evaluate if this group is the best one for you. Reach out to other gamers; join a group via Meetup.com (mine is featured on their homepage today!); consider a PbP if you have the patience.
But never resign yourself to believing that being the GM means your fun is less important than your players'. If you aren't enjoying yourself, you are definitely doing it wrong.
Part of the joy of cooking for other people is setting something in front of them and watching them enjoy it. Sometimes people make requests/suggestions that then challenge your cooking ability. Other times you have a specialty, but not everyone enjoys it (I make great steaks, but I know plenty of vegans) so you have to adapt.
As a GM do you ever feel as if your ability to set parameters for your game are held hostage to what a player wants particularly if they are the 4th player you need for your game?
I'm just curious what are your thoughts?
I usually feel held hostage more to logistics. I game online (doing it in person worked...poorly) and my circle are pretty much D&D/PF specialists. I'd love to play something like Vampire: The Masquerade, Mutants & Masterminds, or Exalted, but even if I could get them interested I'd have to teach the system, handle getting them some kind of workable copy of the rules, and then figure out how to build up a game in those particular idioms instead of just D&D in drag. Which would probably be much helped by playing them, but I'm the guy with the books...
I don't mind it most of the time, but now and then I really have a hankering for something different. I had a few great experiences in more character-driven PBEMs, but they slowly devolved into lots of character pieces where nothing happened, ever. Then GMs started vanishing.