Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Copper_Coins 06-10-06, 02:00 AM	Hey guys, I'll get right into it We recently got Arcana Evolved, and we are currently making new characters, as we would all like to start fresh. Now, because we are making a new party, a friend of ours has asked if he could join in. The DM said No. His reason was that there were already enough people in the party (there are 5 of us). The fact is, one of our players never turns up to sessions (we'll call him Sam). In the last year, he has probably turned up twice (one was at someones birthday party). My solution to this problem is to kick out the guy who doesn't turn up, and replace him with this person who does want to play. But the DM won't do it. The fact is, he could simply tell Sam that due to lack of turning up, he can't play anymore, because somebody who did turn up would be more beneficial to the group. What I can't get, is why doesn't he do that? We're all friends... So... Who's right? Thanks In Advance, Copper.
Galroth 06-10-06, 02:16 AM	Why kick Sam out officially, sounds like he's doing a grand job of 'kicking' himself out by not showing up? Would it seriously disrupt your dm's game to have 1 extra player twice a year? Just throw in a couple of extra monsters every encounter on the days this guy does manage to show up, it really isn't that difficult.
Solik 06-10-06, 02:56 AM	Maybe your DM was just making an excuse and really prefers four players. Or doesn't like that other guy.
Reversefigure4 06-10-06, 04:14 AM	Who's right? By default, the DM. He has to do all the extra work for working with a bigger party. Keeping in mind that if one of your players never shows up, the DM doesn't need to deal with him (depending on what you do with his character). So while the party may have 5 characters, practically there's only 4 people playing. Adding another takes it up to 5, making more work for the DM. If you don't like it, ask your DM if he wants to play himself, and DM the game with as many players as you want.
was_fired 06-10-06, 04:26 AM	The DM isn't always right by default, but when it comes to matters such as these it is his choice. A DM has no authority to stop a player from leaving, and likewise a player has no authority to enter the game without the DM's permission.
Muyte 06-10-06, 06:03 AM	Ask your DM if your friend can come and play Sam's character when Sam is not there.
josephbt 06-10-06, 06:49 AM	wrong forum, kick the guy out, and yes, your DM's right
josephbt 06-10-06, 06:51 AM	strike the bit bout the wrong forum. had multiple browser windows open and figured wrong. srry
Copper_Coins 06-10-06, 06:58 AM	He says that he feels 6 people is too much, so, if Sam forfeits or loses his place in the party, it still evens out to 5 players. I'm on our other friends side here, because in our town Dnd is basically unheard of, there isn't any open gaming community, no gaming stores, so we can't really go off and DM ourselves, as there is no way to get books, we aren't old enough to use amazon or any of that stuff, the only alternative is Star Wars RPG, and I'm not that big of a fan. He is the only DM that we know of, and it is inprobable there are others, this guy really wants to play, and has been sitting through our Dnd talk for over a year. This has been his only real opportunity to formally ask, and he's been turned down, for no apparent good reason. Thanks for the feedback, BTW.
Copper_Coins 06-10-06, 07:02 AM	Maybe your DM was just making an excuse and really prefers four players. Or doesn't like that other guy. Yeah, we're kinda thinking that's what the case is... But there isn't really a reason why he wouldn't like him, everyone else does.. The only person in the party who is siding with the DM is "Sam". And that's probably because of fear of being kicked out.
Bohica 06-10-06, 07:07 AM	Your group as a whole should decide who plays in the group and who doesn't play in the group. Your DM is wrong in this case. He doesn't have to DM for the guy if he doesn't want to, but he has no authority to not allow somebody to join a group, unless of course your group has given him this authority. As somebody said, talk to the other members of the group and lay out the options, it should be a majority decision. Bohica
Black Kitten 06-10-06, 07:14 AM	In our group these things always go democratically. If a majority of the group says 'A', then we do 'A'. The DM is merely the DM and makes sure the others have a good time. Beyond that, there's no power to the DM.
Copper_Coins 06-10-06, 07:42 AM	In our group these things always go democratically. If a majority of the group says 'A', then we do 'A'. The DM is merely the DM and makes sure the others have a good time. Beyond that, there's no power to the DM. This is what I would believe to be the best method, and it should be employed by a lot more groups, I find too many DMs these days see the game as a Totalitarianship/Dictatorship, telling the players what they can or can't do.
Black Kitten 06-10-06, 07:50 AM	This is what I would believe to be the best method, and it should be employed by a lot more groups, I find too many DMs these days see the game as a Totalitarianship/Dictatorship, telling the players what they can or can't do. that could come from the fact that many groups are dependant on their DM to be able to play. In our group, at least 3 of us have the things to run a campaign and each of us knows the rules well enough for it. In other words, if I start to be an ass, they will simply leave. Of course, not everyone's that lucky. So the best thing is to ensure taht your DM isn't a total moron...
stealth_monkey 06-10-06, 08:08 AM	In our group these things always go democratically. If a majority of the group says 'A', then we do 'A'. The DM is merely the DM and makes sure the others have a good time. Beyond that, there's no power to the DM. I disagree somewhat. Barring some strange group dynamics, no-one in the group puts in near the work that the dm does. If you total all of the player's out-of-game work hours together, they most likely wouldn't even begin to reach the gm's week to week book keeping, let alone the initial work involved in starting up a campaign. I believe that this means the gm should be granted a great deal more respect when it comes to the running of the group than a regular player. To put bluntly, the gm does the work, the gm gets the say. My suggestion is that if you desperately want this new person to play, consult your gm and ask to take over the reigns. Then you can gm with as many pc's as you want. The important thing to do is to invite the gm to play as well, so that you don't burn your bridges. If, after the gm sees the player in action still does not want him in his games, there's nothing much you can do except not have him gm again. Personally, this case seems to me that the gm is really comfortable with 4 players, not 5. I've gm'ed for a wide range of numbers, and although I don't personally have any problem with 5 or 6, I would definitely draw the line at 7, after a certain point it simply gets too unwieldy, and it seems this gm has simply reached his personal line.
Copper_Coins 06-10-06, 08:31 AM	Well, he seems happy in the odd occasion everyone turns up, I just don't see the logic of not wanting to replace an inactive player, with one who can and will be active.
DrMorganes 06-10-06, 10:55 AM	Let me make sure I understand this. There are currently 5 players and 1 DM. 1 of those players rarely - if ever - comes to the game, leaving you with 4 players and the DM: a standard (if not downright recommended) playing group. If push comes to shove, tell the DM to take a hike, invite the new guy, and promote somebody to fill the DM position. This can even be done WITHOUT causing hurt feelings. Simply game twice a week: once in your existing campaign, and once with the new one. Even access to material shouldn't be an issue. Your local library may carry sourcebooks. If not, they can get them via interlibrary loan. This takes a bit of planning, but it's cheap! ;) The SRD is a marvelous resource for folks who are already familiar with the game's basic rules, and a Core Rules-only game is a good option when adding a newbie. Heck, you can even try to form an unofficial club of sorts where you all chip in a few bucks a week to purchase a sourcebook. This last item requires a bit more maturity on the parts of everyone, but it can work. In the event the club breaks up, agree to donate the books to your local library!
Zheon 06-10-06, 10:59 AM	okay heres my two cents, if you dont like the fact that your DM wont let this guy play, then quit, boot this 'sam' and adopt this new player. DMing has to start somewhere. one of the remaining players can DM. maybe even you, if thats what floats your boat. in any case you'll still have four players and one DM. if it isnt a majority rules desicion in your group, then make it one.
Steel Cobra 06-10-06, 11:46 AM	Well here is what I say. Since you are starting a new campeign I don't see why the DM is being such a dick. I liked it with 5 people, the extra challenge to get something of a challenge. But the DM does have the say in things. He does alot of work, and therefor he earns his place. Unless he makes everything up on the fly, at which point no he doesn't. But ask again presenting an argument and if he says no again, I agree with all the others and kick him off his self-centered throne. and you or the one that knows the rules the best take up his seat. And about the amazon thing, ask your parents if they would do it for you. It's not that bad. But make sure your parents are willing before you kick the DM.
bob_the_great 06-10-06, 11:30 PM	try talking to your dm. the fact that he's never given you sound reasoning means that you haven't really talked it out. does he really consider it a group of 5 with Sam, or does he consider it a group of 4? if he prefers a group of 4 (the game is designed for parties of 4, making it easier on the dm if his party is in fact 4), then your goal is to cinvince him to waver on that. he might be afraid of the group getting too big so he's drawing a line. maybe he's afraid that 1 or 2 more people will decide they want to join the group and he's nipping it in the bud now. in that case you need to explain that this guy has waited a year for a new game to start, and no one will be asking to join mid-game. also, if more people want to play that can be dealt with them... its unfair to punish this guy for it. i assume the new guy hasn't played d&d before. maybe the dm doesn't want to deal with a newbie. lets assume Sam quit tomorrow. then would your dm allow the new guy to join? if so then you really need get the point across that Sam currently isn't really part of the group. maybe even do a group vote to replace Sam with the new guy. i normally don't have a problem with someone like Sam coming and going, but if your dm is going to tell other people they can't play then Sam becomes a problem. if the new guy is willing to make a commitment that Sam won't, then he deserves the spot at the table. and don't let your dm tell you this is solely the dm's discretion... the players and characters rely on each other and i can only assume that the group would prefer the player/character that actually shows up. and a last thought, how good of a friend of yours is the new guy? if he were one of my better friends i'd probably tell the dm that he's either adding a player or losing one, his choice. i like overly dramatic statements, though.
Copper_Coins 06-11-06, 01:20 AM	Actually, the new guy has played before, occasionally filling in for other members. Sam has no previous RPing experience, and I highly doubt he'll be getting some soon. The library doesn't have any sourcebooks, and we all doubt that they are commercially sold anywhere within travelling distance, Our DM went overseas and got the books. The fact is we live an area where it is highly likely nobody plays Dnd but us. This guy is pretty good friends with all of us, but our DM told me that he sees them more of accquaintances, I think the reason for this is because they don't play Dnd with us anyway, and no offense to the guys on here who do it, but basing your friendships solely around Dnd is quite pathetic. I think this is a case where Rule 0 should never apply, because this is not in-game, this is somebody who wants to sit in on sessions and have fun, what right does the DM have of taking that way from him?
stealth_monkey 06-11-06, 01:38 AM	I think this is a case where Rule 0 should never apply, because this is not in-game, this is somebody who wants to sit in on sessions and have fun, what right does the DM have of taking that way from him? He has the right as long as you guys continue to have him gm. Why not get someone else to do it? Then you can invite whoever you want
Warboss Morgrum 06-11-06, 02:20 AM	I myself have said "Sorry dude, too many players" before as a nicer way of saying "I really don't want you in my game." If the DM doesn't want another (seemingly) competant player, then he must have a reason. I would guess that he is only comfortable with a four person party, and doesn't want to be forced to deal with five people on a regular basis. Personally, I'd try running your own game on a different day. And guys, lay off the democracy for a second. If the DM doesn't want to deal with more players, he's not "on a power trip" or "being a jerk" or whatever you care to call him. He's decieding that he want to put only four or five hours a week into something he gets no pay, no compensation, and probably little if any respect for.
Copper_Coins 06-11-06, 03:54 AM	Nobody else we know have the resources or time to DM, this is why he DM's, he has 7 books, and together we have no books, and no way to buy them. The DM still does all bookwork for the character (it's like having a DMPC), and back when we first started playing, when Sam turned up, he didn't have a problem with the 5 of us. One of our best friends has been sitting through or Dnd talk for a year, he's tried to relate to us through other fantasy based games... I just think that he deserves to play... He's sat on the sidelines long enough.
danzig138 06-11-06, 05:21 AM	Whatever. If it's too many peopel for the DM, then it's too many people. I've had to turn down people before when my group was too large. One of the people I turned down did get to play eventually, after the group size dropped to less than 10. And he's been playing with me now for nearly 11 years. My suggestion, if the DM is unwilling to allow the new guy, is for one of you to start a second game, letting the new guy play in that one. He get's to play, and you get DM experience.
draco1119 06-11-06, 09:26 AM	Nobody else we know have the resources or time to DM, this is why he DM's, he has 7 books, and together we have no books, and no way to buy them. So download the rules from here, print them out, use a 3-hole punch, and put them into a binder. Alternatively, you could ask the DM to let you run a campaign and borrow his books.
Cifer 06-11-06, 10:35 AM	I think this is a case where Rule 0 should never apply, because this is not in-game, this is somebody who wants to sit in on sessions and have fun, what right does the DM have of taking that way from him? If I want to hang out with the beauty of my school, what right does she have of refusing me my fun? Every right there is! Basically, when someone does something in a gaming group, everyone else has a simple choice when all is discussed about it: Leave the group or stay with it. The only difference about the DM is that without him, there is no group if noone else takes up the mantle of DMing. Another difference is that usually a player doesn't have to interact with another player if he doesn't want to - but the DM has to.
celtredleg 06-11-06, 11:42 AM	In our group these things always go democratically. If a majority of the group says 'A', then we do 'A'. The DM is merely the DM and makes sure the others have a good time. Beyond that, there's no power to the DM. Of course there is. The DMs power to not DM. If my players told me I had to let in somebody I didnt like or I felt would make the game to big for me to handle, I would tell them fine, go find a new DM, and a new place to play. I dont respond well to people telling me how I have to spend my spare time.
celtredleg 06-11-06, 12:00 PM	Nobody else we know have the resources or time to DM, this is why he DM's, he has 7 books, and together we have no books, and no way to buy them. The DM still does all bookwork for the character (it's like having a DMPC), and back when we first started playing, when Sam turned up, he didn't have a problem with the 5 of us. One of our best friends has been sitting through or Dnd talk for a year, he's tried to relate to us through other fantasy based games... I just think that he deserves to play... He's sat on the sidelines long enough. You obviously have access to the net. Mailoreder books. Then DM yourself. Problem solved. DMing is a lot of work. Different people have different limits on what they can do. Until you have DMed you have no idea of what it involves, and cant judge what somebody elses capacity to handle more people. And you still may not know of some hidden dislike on the part of the DM. If it was me, I would let him in. But it is not me. You miight consider just how irritated he is going to get if you push to hard. You may wind up with a group of zero players if you make the DM mad.
FeceMan 06-12-06, 02:12 AM	What I can't get, is why doesn't he do that? We're all friends... Control, m'boy. It's all about control. Or he's having a petty little tiff with the player you want to introduce.
pres_man 06-12-06, 03:05 AM	Nobody else we know have the resources or time to DM, this is why he DM's, he has 7 books, and together we have no books, and no way to buy them. This is a pathetic excuse. You don't need any books to play or run (though an understanding of the level methods would be good). If someone is willing to DM here is a few links that should be enough to get them started. System Reference Document (has all core material needed to play and run except leveling rules) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 Free downloadable adventures (for the newbie DM who does not have time to develop material) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b There you go, now you have the resources necessary to DM, eventually you'll be able to make your adventures. Now start DMing yourself or better yet have this guy that wants to join start DMing. Give him the above links or direct him to this discussion. The DM has the power you give him. If you make it impossible to play without him, then he has total control over playing. If you make it clear that you can game without him, then he either can bend towards the party's will or he can take a walk. **EDIT** Here is another useful link for new DMs. http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24
Khan2000 06-12-06, 03:13 AM	Yes the DM is right. Of course, I'm also one who likes having communication between players and DMs. The DM doesn't have to give you his reason for not allowing this guy in, but you can ask him. I'd also express my interest in DMing. This gives this DM a chance to relax and play, and allows anyone else to jump in. *chuckles* Of course, I put this current DM to shame with the amount of books that I own and have access to.
Copper_Coins 06-12-06, 03:22 AM	As I said, this guy has 7 sourcebooks, and it's pretty hard to go up against that material with the SRD alone... And everybody's excited about AU, and theres no way I can get that. Perhaps I had not made myself clear. THIS IS THE ONLY GUY WHO IS ABLE TO DM IN MY AREA. ...Sorry, but capitals seem to get peoples attention. DMing for ourselves was the first idea that came into our head, but you can't go up against 7 books with the SRD alone, who's game would you rather play? ...I'm not whining. I'm asking for other peoples opinions on this situation, and just telling the facts when a suggestion wouldn't work.
pres_man 06-12-06, 03:26 AM	I should add to my comments above, no individual player has a right to push their friends on the group at large. They should talk to the other players (including the DM) and see how the group as a whole feels. Perhaps if the DM is kind of controlling, as in this case, it might be necessary to talk to the other players separately. Also, whoever is hosting the game, usually but not always the DM, can ban anyone from their home that they don't feel comfortable with. The party can decide to game somewhere else if they don't like it.
Copper_Coins 06-12-06, 03:39 AM	Everybody in the group has no problem with this player, we hang out on a regular basis. The DM hasn't had an apparent problem with this guy up until now, either.
pres_man 06-12-06, 03:40 AM	The number of books a DM has no effect on how good of a DM they are. The two things a DM needs to be good are 1)reliability and 2)fairness. If a DM lacks these, their games will suck no matter how many books they have. If a DM has these, then their games will be pretty good regardless if they are limited to the SRD or have access to an entire library. As for this guy being the only one capable of DMing, why? Because he is the only one with books? Sorry, not good enough. Is everyone else incapable of being creative? OK, I'll accept that. He's got his own place and none of your parents will allow you to play? I think you should stay away from things your parents disapprove of until you are old enough to legally make your own choices and understand the nature of those choices. Is he's the only one with miniatures for game play? You don't need miniatures, use whatever you can get your hands on, buttons, chess set, checkers, etc. If you are really serious about having your friend get to play D&D, with this group or not, I suggest that you tell him to start reading through the SRD (at least down to traps) and have him start running short adventures for just him and you. This way he can develop his DMing skills and you can help him with mechanics. Once his skills develop to the point that others might be able to play without making fun of him, then start inviting other folks. As others have said, there is no reason to "challenge" this DM. Just run the game with your friend at a different time.
Copper_Coins 06-12-06, 04:05 AM	Look, this dude doesn't want to play Dnd because it is Dnd and he wants to play it. He want's to play because we're playing it, and having a lot of fun. He's what you might say "envious" of us. We have a friend wanting in on our fun, and the DM is not allowing it. I know I could go DM myself. I know I could go buy the books. The fact is, not everybody could go DM themselves, nor go out and buy the books. We like this guy as a DM, he's good. We just want one of our friends to play too.
Corinthians 06-12-06, 04:11 AM	It should be a vote amongst the group, the DM should never have the sole authority to decide who plays and who doesn't.
Reversefigure4 06-12-06, 05:28 AM	As I said, this guy has 7 sourcebooks, and it's pretty hard to go up against that material with the SRD alone... And everybody's excited about AU, and theres no way I can get that. Perhaps I had not made myself clear. THIS IS THE ONLY GUY WHO IS ABLE TO DM IN MY AREA. ...Sorry, but capitals seem to get peoples attention. DMing for ourselves was the first idea that came into our head, but you can't go up against 7 books with the SRD alone, who's game would you rather play? ...I'm not whining. I'm asking for other peoples opinions on this situation, and just telling the facts when a suggestion wouldn't work. Er... no, he isn't the only guy able to DM in your area. You yourself can do it, with only the SRD. Hell, you don't even need dice - a virtual roller will do that as well. I don't understand why you have to 'go up against' 7 books. Keep playing your DMs game with your friends. Set up another, different game, at a different time, that you will DM. Since you are DMing, you can invite whoever you please to join the current group, including your current DM and the new player. You'll have two DnD games running, one with your current DM, and one with you as the DM and your other friend playing. Simplicity. You aren't in competition with your current game, so there's no question of stealing players. If you aren't prepared to DM yourself, and your current DM doesn't want to take on another player, there's really not a lot you can do about it.
draco1119 06-12-06, 06:54 AM	As I said, this guy has 7 sourcebooks, and it's pretty hard to go up against that material with the SRD alone... And everybody's excited about AU, and theres no way I can get that. Um, I've got about 30 books, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5, and I don't DM. I hate to break it to you, but the number of books means NOTHING. I have the books because I sometimes get in the mood of making a character. I'll DM every once in a while, but I actually prefer to play.
Cifer 06-12-06, 07:59 AM	It should be a vote amongst the group, the DM should never have the sole authority to decide who plays and who doesn't. This is something I completely disagree with. As I said, everyone in the group has, by nature, the authority to speak the words "Either he leaves or I do". In the case of the DM, leaving means the need for a new Dm. Anyway, I'm pretty certain that noone is going to make me DM someone I can't stand or don't want to have in my group. A player always has the choice of just not interacting more than neccessary with someone he doesn't like, but a DM has to interact with everyone. We just want one of our friends to play too. And he doesn't. Do us a favor and read our arguments more thoroughly.
DracoPhoenix 06-12-06, 08:27 AM	I have to go with the board on this one. If the DM is unprepared to allow a new guy join, when everyone else does (sam doesn't count as he's only been to 2 games a year), you invoke player0 - it's about the only thing effective against dm0. Using core only would actually be of benefit when starting out as a DM as you'll have fewer rules and complications to deal with. If there is now way on earth no one else in the group will even attempt DM'ing, and the current DM won't allow the new guy, you really don't have any other options. He's using an unsupported rule0 to veto the new guy joining - logical arguments won't change his mind. If you don't think you'll be any good at it, take turns you all role core only characters, draw lots on the order and each player dm's a session until everyone's had a go. Then you compare notes & learn from eachother. What did people like in other peoples sessions, what did they find hard, were you all having trouble with the same thing? Don't expect miracles from these first sessions, expect a lot of bruises. All DMs start some where. This is where you start. I've always found in life you will always make mistakes. Avoiding them isn't the biggie, it's how you deal with them and what you learn that is.
LCD2YOU 06-12-06, 08:44 AM	Silly personages, Yes, the DM is always right. Get used to it. Get over it. Get a new complaint. Attention, DM of 26 years looking for new players. Inquire within. :D
Bob Loblaw 06-12-06, 10:03 AM	Have you talked to Sam? If he's not going to be able to show up very often maybe you could tell him, from your point of view, why you feel he should be dropped from the game. While Sam may not have been there in the past, his situation may be changing soon and he'll be showing up more. It happens. I had a player unable to show up for nearly 2 years. I didn't drop him from the group "officially." He would show up once every 4 to 6 months for a single session and I would adapt. Now, he is here all the time. It's great having him back now that his situation has changed. For the record, the DM is right. I know that most games take place at the DMs house. I don't care what the players want in this case. In my home, I determine who gets to play and who doesn't. The same would actually hold true if I was one of the players. I get to determine who comes over to my home. Everyone in my group has enough respect to ask me if someone else can come over (I show them the same respect).
celtredleg 06-12-06, 10:23 AM	"For the record, the DM is right. I know that most games take place at the DMs house. I don't care what the players want in this case. In my home, I determine who gets to play and who doesn't. The same would actually hold true if I was one of the players. I get to determine who comes over to my home. Everyone in my group has enough respect to ask me if someone else can come over (I show them the same respect)." Respect for each other goes a long way to makeing the game fun. And the OP is not respecting the DM. He is trying to force him to do something that he doesnt want to do. His reason is not that important. Coins, what do you think will happen if you do force this new guy in?? No you have a resentful DM who feels he has been railroaded into this. So he may responnd by railroading you in game. Yes that would not be very nice, but it would be very human. Or he may start cancelling gameing sessions because he does not want to deal with the new guy. Now you have who you want in the group, you just dont play very much. It doesnt sound like you have discissed this much. Maybe you have talked a lot, but not about the issues. Have you asked for a specific reason?? If he said the group is large enough as is, that may well be the reason. And there is no way around that one. Sam is most likely not an issue. Sure the new guy can take sams place and play twice a year.
pres_man 06-12-06, 10:59 AM	Of course there is another option. :devil: If it really is the fact that the DM does not want another player, that the number of players is the issue, then you could always quit yourself and allow your friend to take your spot. That certainly would be a noble thing to do. I still suggest you talk to your friend and see if he would want to try his hand at DMing so he could get to play. Give him the links above and talk to him. You might be surprised.
GMforPowergamers 06-12-06, 11:23 AM	I have been on both side of this. I run a game at my house every week, and I have had to put my foot down and say "NO" about new players, even friends. Becuse I don't want them in my game for one reason or another. I also have been the guy told "NO" to, becuse I am too good at the game was the excuse given, and it was all new players. Well long and short is TOUGH, it is the DM's game, his call on who plays, not yours...
Missing Minds 06-12-06, 02:19 PM	As I said, this guy has 7 sourcebooks, and it's pretty hard to go up against that material with the SRD alone... And everybody's excited about AU, and theres no way I can get that. Perhaps I had not made myself clear. THIS IS THE ONLY GUY WHO IS ABLE TO DM IN MY AREA. ...Sorry, but capitals seem to get peoples attention. DMing for ourselves was the first idea that came into our head, but you can't go up against 7 books with the SRD alone, who's game would you rather play? ...I'm not whining. I'm asking for other peoples opinions on this situation, and just telling the facts when a suggestion wouldn't work. Emm... yeap, caps do get peoples attention and it seems to me that you are indeed whining like a baby because you can't get your way. You don't have books, well you have the SRDs and if you drop by crystal keep (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php) you can get more information there. You haven't told any facts that I can tell other than your current GM doesn't want Sam playing for whatever reason. The rest stated has only been opinion. Game with 7 books or game with just the SRD alone. The answer is *VERY* (I'll capitalize so you notice) simple. I'd be playing in the game that would have all of the people (players and GMs) I wanted to play with because WE would be the ones to make the game fun for US. Notice how books never entered the issue at all? Ever think that maybe that GM would want a turn as a player for a change? There are several one shot moduals already pre built which would give a new GM pleny of practice to work with.
Thurbane 06-14-06, 04:31 AM	Holy crap, never heard a DM say "sorry, we're full" before - especially not when we're only talking about 6 players. Without having the full story, I think the DM is being quite unreasonable. I have been on both side of this. I run a game at my house every week, and I have had to put my foot down and say "NO" about new players, even friends. Becuse I don't want them in my game for one reason or another. I also have been the guy told "NO" to, becuse I am too good at the game was the excuse given, and it was all new players. Well long and short is TOUGH, it is the DM's game, his call on who plays, not yours... Well, an attitude like that would quickly earn you no players, in my neck of the woods. Yes, the DM puts in more effort than the players and is sacrificing playing in order to create a game world for others to play in, but the doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) make him some almighty tyrant who dictates the social arrangements to the rest of the group. Maybe that's just in my group though. I mean, the main reason we game is to have a chance to catch up and socialize on a regular basis - we wouldn't want to exlude anyone. We had a game running years ago that had TEN players. Combat was a bit of a nightmare, but we all still had fun. In short, my opinion is that while a good DM is worth his weight in gold, at the end of the day he is still a part of a group and should consider himself as such, instead of the center of attention or some sort of dictator.
stealth_monkey 06-14-06, 04:34 AM	Holy crap, never heard a DM say "sorry, we're full" before - especially not when we're only talking about 6 players. Without having the full story, I think the DM is being quite unreasonable. Whether he's being unreasonable or not is irrelevent, it is still his call to make.
Thurbane 06-14-06, 04:39 AM	It certainly is, but see my edited post above. People can play however they want to - but in any group I've gamed in that kind of attitdue would earn you an empty table to be the boss of.
Cifer 06-14-06, 07:42 AM	Holy crap, never heard a DM say "sorry, we're full" before - especially not when we're only talking about 6 players. I know I had about 6 players in my first rounds and it was difficult (see? Italics are a much cooler way of stressing something!) I see the same problem in another round I'm playing in with a new DM (rotating system) again: As soon as the party splits up, he doesn't manage to give everyone their share of game because he can't concentrate on both groups. I thus completely understand DMs who say that they don't want another player.
Ravenwillow 06-14-06, 08:58 AM	The DM isn't always right by default, but when it comes to matters such as these it is his choice. A DM has no authority to stop a player from leaving, and likewise a player has no authority to enter the game without the DM's permission. The DM is *ALWAYS* right by Default, especially in situations like these.. However, if you don't like it, you can always let him be right all by himself.
Ravenwillow 06-14-06, 09:11 AM	Holy crap, never heard a DM say "sorry, we're full" before - especially not when we're only talking about 6 players. Only 6 players? I stop at 4, and prefer three. (Not counting the DM) Many of the people I've played with, (Both as DM and player, and in three different states) agree with this as the 'prime number' for tabletop. I've seen as many as 6 work, after that it just gets rediculous.
MageofMyth 06-14-06, 10:28 AM	Holy crap, never heard a DM say "sorry, we're full" before - especially not when we're only talking about 6 players. I prefer 3 players, but since D&D is set up for 4 I allow only 4 players. Back to the first question. I once used to hang out with this group and we all played. I really liked most of the people but at least one of them I was nice to only because they were friends with the others. I did not really like this person. Later I started a new game and someone wanted this person to play, I stupidly caved in and let him play. I was miserable. In fact it was so bad that I only ran for a few more months before I stoped the game. I had originally said no, but because I couldn't really say why, the players kept going on and on about letting him play. Perhaps your DM has a good reason for not wanting this person to play. It doesn't matter what that reason is, it could be party size, it could be the person's personality. Making the DM miserable is not the way to have a fun game. If you don't want to run a game then I would advise to quit trying to force the DM to do things that he, or she, does not want to do.
Gargs454 06-14-06, 11:41 AM	Here are my thoughts on the issue: 1. It is ultimately up to the DM who gets to play and who doesn't . . . at least in a home game anyway. RPGA events are different story of course as are any other "official" events. 2. That being said, the DM should be willing to discuss the issue with the players, and to the extent possible, explain the reasoning for his decision. 3. The players always have the option of forming their own game, it just might not be all that preferable (i.e. they all prefer to play rather than DM). There are a number of reasons why the DM might not want to let the new player in: 1. He feels more comfortable with 4 players, is more comfortable running adventures etc., since he doesn't have to worry about the effect on CR's and such. I know in a game I just started as a player, we had a TPK on the third encounter mainly because the DM threw too many enemies at us. It was also his first time DM'ing for 6 players. 2. You mentioned that the new player has played in some sessions before. It could well be that the DM feels that the new player's play style will clash with the rest of the party. I currently run a game with just 2 players. I have a third friend who I know would play if I asked him. The problem is, he prefers to just hack and slash while the other two (who I've been playing with since before I knew the 3rd friend) love the roleplay aspects. Whenever we have an adventure dip into a roleplay heavy scene, the 3rd player gets bored and stops having fun. As such, it just wouldn't work well to have him in this campaign. 3. Maybe the DM feels that the new player was cheating during the prior sessions (just a possibility, not saying that he was). 4. Perhaps as was stated above, the DM really doesn't like the new player but just hangs out with him with you guys because he likes the rest of you. In any event, here is what I would do if I were you: 1. Sit down with the DM, and preferably all the other players and the new player. Discuss the situation with him and try to get him to state his reasoning. Obviously, make this an exceedingly polite discussion, no name calling, yelling, etc. If the real issue is that the DM just doesn't think he has the time to prepare for that many players, offer to help out. You guys can rotate DM's and maybe have two or three games going that alternate each week. This gives the DM's extra time to prepare for each session. Above all else, remember to keep it friendly. 2. Explain to the DM why you want to let the new player in. If the problem is play style and the like, that might be fixable. 3. If the DM still refuses to let him in, you're basically left with starting your own game so that the other player can play as well. Most importantly, if you do start the new game, invite the DM in as well. If he sees that the game can work with that many players, he may well let the new player in his game as well. I would certainly attempt to play both games initially too, so that you avoid hurting the DM's feelings by abandoning his game. 4. If nobody else wants to pick up the DM mantle, then you are left at the DM's mercy. Sorry.
Bukowski 06-14-06, 11:43 AM	In short, my opinion is that while a good DM is worth his weight in gold, at the end of the day he is still a part of a group and should consider himself as such, instead of the center of attention or some sort of dictator. I'd like to know how putting your foot down and limiting the group to a size that you're comfortable DMing warrants being labelled insulting terms like "dictator". If your opinion truly is that a good DM is worth his weight in gold, you wouldn't be talking in absolutes about group size/dynamics nor would you be automatically discounting the concept that the OP's DM might have good reasons for limiting group size or for excluding an individual. The OP has already stated that no other person in his group is willing to DM, so he's limited to accepting his current DM's decision on group size. Perhaps your group works amazingly at 10 players, but many do not. Any game that I've been in with more than 6 PC's has: grossly limited roleplay time for those who actually like to develop a detailed, mature personality and storyline for their PC caused combats to bog down into a boring morass where players wait 30 minutes for their turn exacerbated the "player X can't show up so what happens to his character" problem simply due to the logistics of trying to organize a larger number of people increased the amount of time lost to inter-party and inter-player squabbles been overall less enjoyable for everyone involved than a smaller group experience Despite this, I'm not going to make some sort of blanket statement that any large gaming group is a bad thing; likewise, one shouldn't immediately criticize a DM just because his optimal group is smaller than yours.
fenix99 06-14-06, 05:03 PM	In the end I believe it comes down to two things. 1. Dm preference some DM's want exactly 4 players, some less, some more. that's the way it is. Any game exists so all players can have fun. If the Dm won't have fun because of the extra work in adding a player, fair enough. Don't add the player. If the players won't have fun unless their buddy plays as well, then find a new DM. 2. Location My group plays at the home of our current DM. Even if someone other than him DMs, if he doesn't want someone in his home (for whatever reason) that person will not be joining the group. Coins, nowhere does the number of books come into play. I own far more books than our current DM, and he only owns core. Why does he DM? because he's good at it. Not because of how many books he owns. Download the SRD and DM a game yourself.
Thurbane 06-15-06, 04:11 AM	Only 6 players? I stop at 4, and prefer three. (Not counting the DM) Many of the people I've played with, (Both as DM and player, and in three different states) agree with this as the 'prime number' for tabletop. I've seen as many as 6 work, after that it just gets rediculous. Yeah, 3E seems to assume the optimal party size is 4 members. Maybe it's just a hang over from my 1E/2E days, but I find around 6 to be the "average" party size. There is no "right or wrong" size of a D&D group, IMHO. Some may work better for individual groups than others. And as I said, D&D has always been a primarily social event for me. That means the more of my friends I get to cathc up with, the better. Our group are all pretty busy with work and families, so often our D&D game is the only chance we get to regularly catch up. In my situation, I just can't imagine myself or anyone else in my group saying no to someone based solely on group size.
Thurbane 06-15-06, 04:14 AM	I'd like to know how putting your foot down and limiting the group to a size that you're comfortable DMing warrants being labelled insulting terms like "dictator". If your opinion truly is that a good DM is worth his weight in gold, you wouldn't be talking in absolutes about group size/dynamics nor would you be automatically discounting the concept that the OP's DM might have good reasons for limiting group size or for excluding an individual. The OP has already stated that no other person in his group is willing to DM, so he's limited to accepting his current DM's decision on group size. Perhaps your group works amazingly at 10 players, but many do not. Any game that I've been in with more than 6 PC's has: grossly limited roleplay time for those who actually like to develop a detailed, mature personality and storyline for their PC caused combats to bog down into a boring morass where players wait 30 minutes for their turn exacerbated the "player X can't show up so what happens to his character" problem simply due to the logistics of trying to organize a larger number of people increased the amount of time lost to inter-party and inter-player squabbles been overall less enjoyable for everyone involved than a smaller group experience Despite this, I'm not going to make some sort of blanket statement that any large gaming group is a bad thing; likewise, one shouldn't immediately criticize a DM just because his optimal group is smaller than yours. If you want to re-read my posts, you might have missed things such as "without having the full story" and "maybe that's just in my group though". I am not speaking in absolutes, merely giving an opinion based on my own experiences. The OP is completely free to listen to my point of view or ignore it altogether, just as you yourself are. ;)
Roxlimn 06-15-06, 04:34 AM	It's the DMs table, he gets to call who joins. You can ask him, but there's nothing you can do if he doesn't want to do it. Ultimately, gaming is a group choice, and that group includes the DM. If you and another player get into a terminal disagreement, you can quit, the game goes on. If you and the DM get into a terminal disagreement and HE quits (which he always reserves the right to do), then the game is over. You can persuade him to take the new player, but you can't coerce him with threats or group consensus, unless he is willing to submit to group authority to begin with.