Hi All
My group are currently working our way through The Shackled City Quest using 3.5 rules.
Recently, our regular (and only) DM of over 10 years has decided to convert to the new Pathfinder rules, effective immediately.
We are currently 8th Level out of a 20 level Quest, and have voted 5 to 1 (5 players to 1 DM) that we would like to stick with 3.5 until the current Quest's completion, changing over when it's all wrapped up.
Upon this vote, our DM has delivered the ultimatum that we either convert to Pathfinder now or he'll stop running the campaign (and any other campaigns) altogether.
The basis of his arguement is that, being the DM, he puts all the work in week to week, so as he wants to change to Pathfinder, we should do it or find a new DM.
Although the vote stood in the Players favour, even with years of gaming none of us have ever really taken on the responsibilities of DMing before, and therefore, is our DM's reaction understandable, or should it be viewed as rather harsh, or even immature, by ignoring our vote?
Has anyone else had a similar situation before? Any opinions would be welcome!
He's being immature. Yes, being the DM is hard, but switching rulesets almost halfway through a module is annoying (and moreso if this is out-of-the-blue). If he's going to whine and say "Switch now or get a new DM," get a new DM.
He's being immature. Yes, being the DM is hard, but switching rulesets almost halfway through a module is annoying (and moreso if this is out-of-the-blue). If he's going to whine and say "Switch now or get a new DM," get a new DM.
+1
it's kinda hard to DM for a group of exactly zero players.
as a DM of almost 15 years, I see this as a HUGE violation of the DM-player "trust contract". besides, it's just bad form. A DM has to be mindfull of his players. I'm usually a proponent of "DM has final say -- deal with it"; but this guy is just plain ridiculous. What, does he expect that you guys are just gonna remake your characters from scratch against your will? GTFO!
I am usually the very last person in the world to say "walk/ditch the dm", what ever -- however, this is the most extreme case of "abuse of power" that I've ever heard of -- if you guys don't want to switch rule-sets in the middle of the campaign, then don't. If the DM isn't down for that, then you need to shop for a new DM (or just one of you guys step-up to the plate).
(I mean, it seems like you already did the whole "talk to the DM in a reasonable manner" thing -- he's gone beyond the point of no return)
He's being immature. Yes, being the DM is hard, but switching rulesets almost halfway through a module is annoying (and moreso if this is out-of-the-blue). If he's going to whine and say "Switch now or get a new DM," get a new DM.
This, or something like it. He may not be immature necessarily, but he is being stubborn and obstinate.
Do not to play dueling ultimatums with him. Instead, sit down as a group - DM included - and discuss the issue and reach a group consensus.
The best solution IMO would be to tkae a short break from the main game and give Pathfinder a try as a one- or two-shot side game. Get everyone familiar with it and see how everyone likes it. You may find that it is not so different and that an edition-switch may be far less problematic than originally thought.
If it turns out that it would still be too disuptive then talk to the DM, tell him you are not anit-Pathfinder and are all more than willing to make the switch after the current campaign ends. If after all that he still pulls the "my way or the highway" powertrip then tall him fine, he is welcome to play a PC in your new DM's game or to leave as he chooses, but you are keeping him to his word and no longer are you willing to play any game he wants to run.
I can't really see what the players have to complain about. If he's the DM he should be able to shaft them at will with no warning or even explanation. If they protest, he should walk off with his toys. And if they ask 'why are we changing to a rule set we don't own and are not familiar with?' just ignore them or make something up.
These players don't know how lucky they are to have someone willing to DM.
It's not a pretty sight to have DMs (or players) issuing ultimatums.
Looks like the DM just wants to play with the new rules - perhaps he's excited about some of the changes in Pathfiner - and was expecting everyone to be just as keen.
Actually, personally I would not walk away automatically from this situation, but I would expect a bit more from the DM than "I do all the prep, so you must do X . . ." It's not exactly a promotion for Pathfinder, or the DM's stability.
Try and get everyone to take a step back from confrontation and discuss it a couple of days' on . . . get it out in the open what the players dislike about switching rulesets and like about sticking with 3.5 . . . also for the DM vice-versa.
See if you can find a compromise - perhaps at end of current adventure DM runs a v short sampler to Pathfinder to see if players get on with it, with the understanding that a vote at the end of the sampler is what players want for the main campaign. That way at least he gets to run a little bit of Pathfinder, and reactions from the players are not just knee-jerk.
If that doesn't work, well I guess that you are back to the ultimatum.
I suppose the only compromise he could offer would be to trial it first (as he probably did with 4th Edition before rejecting it). But darn it, if he loosens his grip on the chain now the players will think his power something other than absolute.
Though a trial would be reasonable, and make sense, I'm not sure if limiting it to a trial that everyone gets a say on won't send out the wrong message about who's in charge.
He's being immature. Yes, being the DM is hard, but switching rulesets almost halfway through a module is annoying (and moreso if this is out-of-the-blue). If he's going to whine and say "Switch now or get a new DM," get a new DM.
Yep. This. At the very least if he's going to issue THAT kind of ultimatum then he's volunteering to buy a copy of the rules for all of his players. Now, his attitude may have a BASIS in truth, but it's quite out of proportion.
As DM he DOES have the right to run only the game he wants to run. As players when you agree to play the campaign you agree to play by the rules he sets. Changing the rules midstream, however, is an EXTREMELY special case. This is NOT what you as a player signed on for. You signed on to play D&D, NOT Pathfinder. He agreed to run D&D at the outset, NOT Pathfinder. He should not be DEMANDING that you change, merely ASKING - especially if none of you own or are particularly interested in playing Pathfinder.
Your comprimise of wrapping up the current goings-on before switching is EXTREMELY fair, especially in light of his INTOLERABLE attitude. By rights you should LET him take his dice and walk out. Seriously. This is a horrible indicator of his general attitude and ability as DM. TELL HIM SO. I'd say that at this stage your game is on hold until you talk this out. He may have the ability to say, "My way or the highway", but he does not have the right or privilege in this kind of situation to invoke that kind of petulant attitude.
You seriously need to find out what's behind this sudden decision to be a colossal jerk before you game another moment with this person at the helm.
At first thought my impression was "what a jerk" but in thinking about it, your DM's move seems to be something taken straight from these boards as common advice. I can see where he is coming from.
DM is tired of the unbalanced 3.5, and wanting to move to something that fixes it. (Maybe point out the ways in which it doesn't fix anything, but does make problems worse?) No biggie. He is DM it is his right to run whatever system he wants. If he doesn't want to run 3.5, you shouldn't make him. That said, he shouldn't force you guys to run pathfinder either.
Basically if you guys can't reach a compromise you are at an "I won't play pathfinder" "I won't DM 3.5" roadblock. There are three solutions, don't play, compromise or one of you sucks it up. Is the DM's game that good that you could suck it up and play? Are you a good enough player/group to make the DM suck it up and run 3.5? Is there a couple of house rules you could use to make the game more like pathfinder and 3.5 combined so everyone is happy? Does it turn out that his game actually sucks and you don't really want to go? Does it turn out you are a crappy player, and he would be glad to be rid of you?
Answer those questions with the DM, and it should lead you to one of the three solutions.
I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. If I were still on 3.5, I'd be dieing to switch to Pathfinder. No more running out of useful spells as a caster ever again.
Seriously, this should be to everyone's benefit. Since the DM put forth the idea, just make sure he is the one to provide everyone else with the material they will need for their characters from here on end.
Something fishy is going on here:
DMing is a hell of a lot of work. DMing 3.5 is *even more work than that*, because 3.5 is just about the most DM-unfriendly non-degenerate system in existence. If the DM doesn't want to put in the mountains of effort that running 3.5 requires and thinks Pathfinder will cut his workload, I say more power to him. The real problem here is this:
The DM has said he *will not* run 3.5 any more, period.
If he's holding to that, this means either you swap systems or you stop playing.
You, the players, have a choice: Swap systems or *stop playing*. If you all quit, he's got nobody to run for and the game ends. If you don't swap, *he* quits and the game ends.
So, unless your DM changes his mind, it's Pathfinder or nothing for you. You have *no* appeal and *no* recourse - there's absolutely no way for you to *force* him to run a game he doesn't want to play. If you all choose "nothing" instead of PAthfinder, he might change his mind - or he might not.
Well said Lordofweasels. If they want to play something you don't like, let them go elsewhere to find it!
It might have been a little unfair to ask for a delay until the end of the campaign, which is less than half over. 12 levels is a looong time. Even with weekly sessions and a fast pace that'll probably be a year.
Pathfinder is enough like 3.5 (probably less of an update than 3.0 to 3.5 was) that you could probably have a few test sessions to try it out without derailing the campaign. After a trial run the group can vote again.
Your DM should bow to the will of the majority, that much is fair.
It might have been a little unfair to ask for a delay until the end of the campaign, which is less than half over. 12 levels is a looong time. Even with weekly sessions and a fast pace that'll probably be a year.
.... uh, yeah.
I ran 3.0 for four months, then 3.5 another 12 after that.
*Never again*.
If you were talking about running until the end of the adventure 3-4 sessions from now, you'd have a point. Until the end of the *campaign* a *year-ish* from now? That's cruel and unusual punishment.
Your DM should bow to the will of the majority, that much is fair.
No, it is not, in any way, fair.
You don't want to change, great. *He* is doing all the work, unpaid, and obviously isn't having fun. So he, in fact, gets to say "Uh, no, no more. Let's do something I *will* have fun on"
"Fair" is allowing one of you players who love 3.5 so much to run the game instead of him. Trade - he makes a PC, one of you takes over running. If he's just burned out on running, this fixes the problem for everyone. If the new DM also finds 3.5 intolerable, he's gained a convert: you can swap systems or swap GMs again.
Either way, he said he was going to run 3.5, and now he is saying he is *not* going to run 3.5, and he "owes" you nothing more than an explanation.
Ultimatums suck, because they inherently rule out the very important concept of compromising.
And compromising is something we learn the value of in kindergarden.
Along with sharing, being nice, and growing up.
These were missed somewhere...
It is kinda interesting to see these things running in parallel. A few worthwhile thoughts have been brought up.
- First... Yeah. level 8 out of a 20 level quest? "just let us finish the quest first." is not *anything* like a reasonable compromise, if the DM actively dislikes the system that you're in. In fact, it doesn't look like there are any terribly viable compromises available.
- It is entirely within the DM's *right* to say "I am not going to DM 3.5 any longer. I am, however going to DM pathfinder. Join me or don't. It's up to you." Similarly, it is any player's right to walk out at any time for any reason. This is the way these games work.
- On the flip side, the fact that the DM has gone so far as to *use* this particular tactic means that either they're lacking a little with the ol' social skills, or the players are being unreasonably obstinate, or both. (My money's on both.) A bit more understanding and a bit less abrasiveness on both sides seems like it might be in order. The posts on this thread *by* the DM in question rather add to that - before I made the connection, I honestly thought it was someone being sarcastic. Thank you, _Jayne_Cobb_, for that oh-so-useful link of insightfulness.
- Insight: I suspect that if you (DM) had put things as "Listen guys, I'm sorry, but I've really grown to hate 3.5 in a lot of ways. I can't stand DMing in it any more. Thankfully, I've also found this new rev on the system that fixes a lot of the broken stuff, with a relatively easy conversion, so it should be pretty easy to convert things over." it would have gotten a *much* better reception, and we wouldn't even have this thread to respond to. By stating it autocratically, as "I am the DM, and you, my lowly peons, must do as I say or be cast out" - *especially* after some sort of a vote (and was the vote your idea? If so, that whole "votes only matter if I agree with them" thing just makes this worse) you're basically antagonizing them for no good reason other than to reinforce your own power trip. DMs have the *right* to power-trip, in some ways, but that doesn't make it a *good* *idea*.
Thing is, though, that's not the way you put it. It isn't that you loathe 3.5 - you seem to like it fine. It's just that you thought it would be easier to make the switch early - and the players disagreed and said they wanted to make it at the end of the adventure. Heck - that means less overall work for you, since you don't have to switch stuff around mid-adventure. It sounds like really what you're upset about is that they didn't immediately fall in line when you expressed a preference. It's the idea that they might question your authority that enrages you.
I can't really see what the players have to complain about. If he's the DM he should be able to shaft them at will with no warning or even explanation. If they protest, he should walk off with his toys. And if they ask 'why are we changing to a rule set we don't own and are not familiar with?' just ignore them or make something up.
These players don't know how lucky they are to have someone willing to DM.
I suppose the only compromise he could offer would be to trial it first (as he probably did with 4th Edition before rejecting it). But darn it, if he loosens his grip on the chain now the players will think his power something other than absolute.
Though a trial would be reasonable, and make sense, I'm not sure if limiting it to a trial that everyone gets a say on won't send out the wrong message about who's in charge.
Rep to SanityFaerie: Wise words, indeed.
I think if one of our DMs were to pull this crap of ignoring the players basic wishes/giving out such ultimatums they'd get a real surprise.
Because the next time we played? There'd be a new DM. And a vote as to wether or not Mr.Ex-DM was invited to play - at least for that campaign.
This of course would lead to good old fight as we're all close friends. But every now & then things need sorting out....
I think if one of our DMs were to pull this crap of ignoring the players basic wishes/giving out such ultimatums they'd get a real surprise.
Because the next time we played? There'd be a new DM. And a vote as to wether or not Mr.Ex-DM was invited to play - at least for that campaign.
This of course would lead to good old fight as we're all close friends. But every now & then things need sorting out....
Him: "Hey, I'm not having fun running this any more. I'm not going to run it any more. I'm willing to keep running it if we switch systems, but this system is driving me crazy."
You: "BURN THE WITCH!"
It *does not matter* how much you want to keep playing 3.5 - exactly like if you'd decided you didn't want to play in this game and dropped out, and the DM wanted you to stay.
OK, I've been in more or less exactly the same situation as the DM in this situation is in. I have a ton of material created over years that is currently in 3.5 format (it was originally mostly in 2e format).
We have a couple of campaigns still running in that world. One run by our group's other main DM, who has adopted my overall world and is running his campaign in a portion of it.
The other DM has stated that he is not interested in moving to 4e, or Pathfinder yet. I originally was opposed to moving to 4e for several reasons, including the work involved in modifying things for 4e (lots and lots of NPCs and monsters will need reworking, along with magic items, magic effects, traps, etc....)
We had an informal vote to see if the group wanted to move to 4e or stick with 3.5. Our results were a little less clear, basically we had one "No way, I'm sticking with 3.5," two "Well, I'm OK whichever way we go," one "I want to give 4e a try at least" and the rest not voting.
So, when we reached a point in my campaign where we could take a break, we agreed to try a 4e module and revisit the long-term direction after completing the 4e module as a group. In the meantime the other DM is still runing his 3.5 campaign and a third part-time DM is also running his 3.5 campaign. (I am the DM running the 4e module).
It has been my experience that this approach (running three campaigns at once, two in 3.5 and one in 4e) has created more confusion than running all three in 3.5, but it's manageable.
When we get through with the module, we'll revisit the situation. In the meantime my 3.5 campaign is on hold.
I fail to see the issue. No one's free will is trampled here, the players can vote with their feet.
The Dm is free to choose what he wants to run, if the players don't like it they can appoint a new DM.
I've already told my group when the current campaign arc wraps up in december that if I like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3ed that I won't be running 4e anymore. They're cool with it, if they don't like WFRP they won't play it, it's as simple as that.
Dear any and all,
Well the results are in. I am sure it will come as little surprise, but I am not in fact the DM, merely one of the players at this table. I originally spoofed the DMs position on the players version of this topic (which is why those quotes, Sanityfaerie, are clearly written by a psychotic or a moron), but I decided to try and phrase the arguement again in more rational and reasonable terms on the DMs side, to see if perhaps it was just our perspective that was warped. It wasn't done especially well, but nothing I said fell outside of our DMs position. In fact I was more than generous than the reality of it by not correcting some assumptions other people made.
Though we are on level 8 out of 20, we hardly ever game beyond levels 10-12 , so the period of waiting is actually much reduced.
Only 1 player out of 5 has even seen a Pathfinder rule book to date (and the DM only got his copy a few days ago). This player has been the lobbying for Pathfinder for months. But even he didn't want to change over till the end of the quest.
All the players had already agreed that we'd switch over to Pathfinder, just not until the end of this group's progress.
We did ask to trial the game first, he refused.
At least 2 other members at the table also DM, or are prepared to, and would happily take over to carry on playing 3.5 for a while longer.
The players agreed to foot their fair share of the bill for new books once we did change over, the DM just expects that timetable to shorten.
The DM has less free time than any of his players, but when it was suggested that someone possiblely take over while he PCs, he threw his toys out of the pram like it was somehow a threat to his domain.
The DM informed us of his intentions via text message on the morning before the next session. At the same time he said he was ebaying off all irrelevant 3.5 material to finance the swap, thus making the debate mute as we'd only have Pathfinder to work from. I agreed to purchase those books myself to avoid a change by default. In his defense he did cancel the session later that day, giving us a week to come to terms with his decision and get to grips with the new rules.
Our real DM has read both this thread and the one on the players board and dismissed all of your comments. Sorry particularly to Sanityfaerie there, because your position was very balanced and reasonable, and you politely accepted I was bi-polar rather than call me out as a fraud.
Anyway, 3 out of 5 players so far have agreed to his demands. We all knew if we wanted to carry on with him as a DM, we'd have to make a change to either 4th Ed or Pathfinder. He simply can't work from anything but a pre-written quest and those are fast running out in 3.5. The players that have agreed don't want to change systems mid-quest either, so if we play, it'll be a new group and quest. I have yet to decide if I am in or not. For various reasons, if I walk, the fifth player may have to walk too as effectively I am his sponsor. 3 players left will only just be enough to play. It is all getting very messy. I'll report in when there is more news.
Him: "Hey, I'm not having fun running this any more. I'm not going to run it any more. I'm willing to keep running it if we switch systems, but this system is driving me crazy."You: "BURN THE WITCH!"
Or, if you'd actually read the thread, not even remotely this.
Or, if you'd actually read the thread, not even remotely this.
Did you read the bit I quoted, that I was responding to?
Seriously, this entire thread is entitlement wankery and really, truly, pathetic drama. The GM owes you *nothing*, and CCS claiming that if his GM quit running his preferred system because he wasn't willing to deal with it any more they'd kick him out of the group and "maybe" let him play again afterwards?
Wow.
To all the people who seem to think the GM is being unfair and should be "forced" to keep running the game: Are you *nine*?
Just ignore the Lordweasels. Our DM has not said he's not having fun anymore, nor that 3.5 is driving him crazy. We also have not threatened buring, we just want a little more time to ease into the change.
Also, as far as i know, he likes the Shackled city campagn we're doing. We all do. He just loves shiny new things more and, as he puts in more effort than us to make it work, he thinks it's his perogative to make this change in this way.
Anyway, we'll see how things play out over the next few days. I should be getting my hands on my copy of Pathfinder this eve along with all the 3.5 stuff he agreed not to auction off.
And Lordofweasels, we're not focing him. To even make that point implies you don't consider basic human rights to be a given. This is about a relationship between friends, not whether he signed the London treaty and must now abide by the decision of the allies.
Just ignore the Lordweasels. Our DM has not said he's not having fun anymore, nor that 3.5 is driving him crazy. We also have not threatened buring, we just want a little more time to ease into the change.
First: CCS was the one making crazy threats to his GM if they dared to possibly stop running a game he wanted to play, not you.
Second: You asked for *12 levels* of "a little more time".
Also, as far as i know, he likes the Shackled city campagn we're doing. We all do. He just loves shiny new things more and, as he puts in more effort than us to make it work, he thinks it's his perogative to make this change in this way.
It kind of is. You can talk to him, but if he doesn't want to run it, you can't make him, any more than he can make you play if you decide to quit.
Anyway, we'll see how things play out over the next few days. I should be getting my hands on my copy of Pathfinder this eve along with all the 3.5 stuff he agreed not to auction off.
If you really want to continue playing the current campaign, in 3.5, and he's not willing to do it, and he doesn't want to join as a PC, you *could* just keep playing without him. One of the existing players takes over as GM, and you go on without him. It's not like *he* can stop *you* from doing this, either.
You're really going to have to read the whole thing mrweasels, otherwise you'll end up making more mistakes about what our situation is. And if, after that, you still think this is about the absolute extremes of what is possible and acceptable (forcing someone to play a game for example), then you have almost autistically missed the point.
Did you read the bit I quoted, that I was responding to?
Yes, and if you'd read the rest of the thread you would see to what it was actually refering.
Seriously, this entire thread is entitlement wankery and really, truly, pathetic drama. The GM owes you *nothing*, and CCS claiming that if his GM quit running his preferred system because he wasn't willing to deal with it any more they'd kick him out of the group and "maybe" let him play again afterwards?
The issue is not the DM being unhappy running a system, it is the DM demanding the group kowtow to his demands, that he requires them to switch now to a system with which none of them are familiar, that he refuses to even run a trial game for the rest of the group to see if they like it, and that if they do not adhere to his demands he will never run a game for them ever again.
The DM being a domineering, inflexible ass who is trying to bully and blackmail the rest of the group into doing what he wants, irrespective of the group's desires as a whole. A DM need not continue runnign a system with which he is unhappy, but there is a world of difference between "Guys, I'm not having fun running this system anymore. Can we look at other options" and "Do it my way NOW or I'm taking my toys and going home!"
If you'd read the whole thread you might have understood that.
Wow.
Wow indeed.
To all the people who seem to think the GM is being unfair and should be "forced" to keep running the game:
As I said, the issue is not that the DM be "forced to keep running the game", it is how he is treating a group of people who are ostensibly his friends.
Are you *nine*?
Are you?
I fail to see the issue. No one's free will is trampled here, the players can vote with their feet.
You're right - it's got nothing whatever to do with free will. It has EVERYTHING to do with common freakin courtesy amongst all and sundry.
"Guys, I'm not having fun running this system anymore. Can we look at other options"
I think you mean "Guys, I'm not having fun with this system. I'm not running it any more. I'm willing to run this other system, we can convert, but I'm *not* running 3.5"
"Do it my way NOW or I'm taking my toys and going home!"
OP's already posted strawman arguments in his GM's mouth in the other thread - I take his exactly description of the situation with a large grain of salt. And even then "If you guys don't switch to Pathfinder, I'm not running anything for you" is *entirely* fair when you consider the implied "I'm not running 3.5 any more, ever. Pathfinder or nothing"
The DM being a domineering, inflexible ass who is trying to bully and blackmail the rest of the group into doing what he wants, irrespective of the group's desires as a whole.
What part of "the group's desires as a whole are utterly irrelevant" is unclear to you?
Any player who isn't having fun in a game has a right to present the changes he'd like made to correct his fun, and to stop playing if they're not implemented. And the GM is a player.
The GM *owes you nothing*. If you don't like his attitude or his actions, *you* have the ability to talk to him, ask for changes you want, and then quit if they're dealbreakers and they're not implemented.
You're right - it's got nothing whatever to do with free will. It has EVERYTHING to do with common freakin courtesy amongst all and sundry.
See, that I agree with. And I happen to think that posting strawmen to an internet forum is pretty discourteous, myself.
But when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter, to me, *why* the GM quit, or *how* he quit. Yes, he might have been a jerk, and yes, you might not want to hang out with a guy who's a jerk like that if he keeps doing it. That's an *out of game* concern, on the same level as "why would you play with a guy who doesn't shower?"
What matters is that the GM *has* quit.
He says: Pathfinder, or he stops running the game.
Player choices: Pathfinder, game ends, or new GM.
That's it, that's all. There is *no* option for the game to continue with the current GM under 3.5, period, because he says there isn't and, according to the OP, isn't budging on that condition. That's a dealbreaker for him.
And that's *his right*.
What part of "the group's desires as a whole are utterly irrelevant" is unclear to you?
It's not unclear, it's wrong.
Any player who isn't having fun in a game has a right to present the changes he'd like made to correct his fun, and to stop playing if they're not implemented. And the GM is a player.
Yes, and telling everyone they can essentially do it your way of f-off is not "present(ing) the changes he'd like made", it is being a belligerent ass and that is the issue. That you have failed to recognize this fact does not change it.
The GM *owes you nothing*. If you don't like his attitude or his actions, *you* have the ability to talk to him, ask for changes you want, and then quit if they're dealbreakers and they're not implemented
Yes, and as you point out the DM is a player and should do likewise. If he is unhappy he should talk to the rest of the group about it, not issue ultimatums and bully the group into toeing his line.
Yes, and telling everyone they can essentially do it your way of f-off is not "present(ing) the changes he'd like made", it is being a belligerent ass and that is the issue. That you have failed to recognize this fact does not change it.
How is "I'm not running 3.5. I'll run Pathfinder, or nothing" anything *other* than presenting the changes he wants made?
Yes, and as you point out the DM is a player and should do likewise. If he is unhappy he should talk to the rest of the group about it, not issue ultimatums and bully the group into toeing his line.
Wait - in one sentence, you agree that he *should* be allowed to say "This is intolerable. We change it or I quit, but it does NOT continue", but then in the next you say that "This is intolerable. We change it or I quit, but it does NOT continue" is a bullying ultimatum that he shouldn't do?
Make up your mind. Either the DM has an obligation to run a game he doesn't want to, or else he's entirely within his rights to tell his players that he's not running it any more.
How is "I'm not running 3.5. I'll run Pathfinder, or nothing" anything *other* than presenting the changes he wants made?
In the same way that saying "F-off and die in a fire tasting your own blood" is not the same as saying "no thank you".
Wait - in one sentence, you agree that he *should* be allowed to say "This is intolerable. We change it or I quit, but it does NOT continue", but then in the next you say that "This is intolerable. We change it or I quit, but it does NOT continue" is a bullying ultimatum that he shouldn't do?Make up your mind. Either the DM has an obligation to run a game he doesn't want to, or else he's entirely within his rights to tell his players that he's not running it any more.
No, in one sentence I said the DM should talk to his group about being unhappy, not issuing ultimatums and being an a-hole, and in the other sentence I said the same thing. You deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said does not make it so.
The DM is entirely within his rights not to run a system with which he is unhappy, or to choose only to run a system he wants, but he is not within his rights to treat his friends like dirt. If you honestly believe that a saying to a group of friends "You will do what I say or I'm leaving!" is acceptable social behavior then I'm glad you are neither my DM nor my friend.
No, in one sentence I said the DM should talk to his group about being unhappy, not issuing ultimatums and being an a-hole, and in the other sentence I said the same thing. You deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said does not make it so.
In a hypothetical Jayne's Perfect World(tm), where everything happens in your most preferred way, is the GM allowed to stop running a game even if his players unanimously vote that he keep running it, or not?
Seriosuly, Jayne, that weasels chap, there is nothing to discuss with him. Even our DM isn't as bizarrely unable to grasp the obvious social implications as him. It really is a matter of how to placate a spoiled child, not to discuss the mechaincal ethical absolutes by which people should interact. I have to imagine that his stubborness is either, at least in part, a desire to create discord, or sadly just a sign that he's an a sociopath with a low IQ.
Also Jayne, if it helps, we did agree with our DM to move to Pathfinder or 4th Ed, nearly a year ago (as we could see that 3.5s end was nigh) but, like the rest of us, he has never voiced any particular dislike for 3.5. He just likes new things, so he changed the timeframe from 'when we finish the quest' to 'from next session, and I'm selling off the old books so you can't play 3.5 anyway'.
Clearly it's not acceptable behaviour for a human being, nevermind a DM, so the question is, how to go about making him see this and then letting him step back from the brink.
In all fairness though, we should let Lordoftheweasels carry on. He paints a better satirical picutre of our DM than I ever could. Screw it, let him go nuts.
Seriosuly, Jayne, that weasels chap, there is nothing to discuss with him. Even our DM isn't as bizarrely unable to grasp the obvious social implications as him. It really is a matter of how to placate a spoiled child, not to discuss the mechaincal ethical absolutes by which people should interact. I have to imagine that his stubborness is either, at least in part, a desire to create discord, or sadly just a sign that he's an a sociopath with a low IQ.
Same question to you: Is the GM *allowed* to quit? And, if so, what are his obligations to the players once he's decided to quit?
That's right weasels. But explain again. I'm not clear.
In a hypothetical Jayne's Perfect World(tm), where everything happens in your most preferred way, is the GM allowed to stop running a game even if his players unanimously vote that he keep running it, or not?
Sarcasm makes your point seem more valid.
Are you deliberately missing the point or honestly simply failing to grasp it? The DM can stop running a game any times he wants, and the players can stop playing in it any time they want. This is not, and never has been, the issue.
In my perfect world friends do not treat friends like dirt. Yours apparently differs.
Also Jayne, if it helps, we did agree with our DM to move to Pathfinder or 4th Ed, nearly a year ago (as we could see that 3.5s end was nigh) but, like the rest of us, he has never voiced any particular dislike for 3.5. He just likes new things, so he changed the timeframe from 'when we finish the quest' to 'from next session, and I'm selling off the old books so you can't play 3.5 anyway'.
Wait, wait, you don't even own any of the books? And it's "clearly not acceptable behaviour" for him to sell of his own property? And his selling off his books makes you incapable of getting your own?
Clearly it's not acceptable behaviour for a human being, nevermind a DM, so the question is, how to go about making him see this and then letting him step back from the brink.
I'm reasonably sure he could have handled it better. But "step back from the brink"? That's an odd phrasing. So, in *your* perfect world, right now, what should he be doing?
Seriosuly, Jayne, that weasels chap, there is nothing to discuss with him. Even our DM isn't as bizarrely unable to grasp the obvious social implications as him. It really is a matter of how to placate a spoiled child, not to discuss the mechaincal ethical absolutes by which people should interact. I have to imagine that his stubborness is either, at least in part, a desire to create discord, or sadly just a sign that he's an a sociopath with a low IQ.
He is deliberately misrepresenting my position, and being rude about it to boot, but that's no reason to be rude or insulting in return. All that does is give people ammunition to use against you. I'm sure some petty little busybody is already reporting your post to the mods. It's just not worth it.
Are you deliberately missing the point or honestly simply failing to grasp it? The DM can stop running a game any times he wants, and the players can stop playing in it any time they want. This is not, and never has been, the issue.
I suspect we're arguing different points.
Take a look at the posts from the player, here. I'm seeing nothing but pure entitlement - the idea that the GM should have kept running the game, that the fact that he doesn't want to is irrelevant in the face of the players unanimously saying they want to keep going. The poster *just finished* saying that the GM selling *his own books* was clearly "not acceptable behaviour for a human being", and that's not even me indulging in hyperbole - that's a direct quote.
Between that player's postings here, and his posing *as* the GM in a different thread where he admits to throwing out statements that, in his own words "are clearly written by a psychotic or a moron", I find his description of the GM's actions as particulary jerkish... uncompelling.
What we have are two arguments.
Argument #1: Quitting in this way was a jerk move and the GM shouldn't have done that because the way in which he quit was jerkish.
Argument #2: Quitting was a jerk move and the GM shouldn't have done that because only a total jerk would quit.
I understand you to be arguing #1, and I'm arguing that we have no reliable witness to say that the GM's behaviour was jerkish, and, in fact, we know our only witness to be unreliable. However, you keep agreeing with TMFU, who is switching back and forth erratically between #1 and #2. Which means that I wind up arguing against #2 with you, because you just agreed with a guy apparently espousing #2.
So, I'm trying to clarify. Which means, simplifying.
I say #2 is complete nonsense. In general, any GM has the right to quit, just like any player does. Would you agree with this statement?
Forget *how* it's said, or why he's quitting. It could be because he has leukemia and wants to go to Disneyworld before he dies, or it could be because the voices in his head have told him you're an evil repitilian alien. Any player has the right to drop any game, at any time, regardless of his position or importance to it, and the sole game-related recourse of the other players is to *not play with that guy again* if they don't like it. Would you agree with me, on this specific statement?
He is deliberately misrepresenting my position, and being rude about it to boot, but that's no reason to be rude or insulting in return. All that does is give people ammunition to use against you. I'm sure some petty little busybody is already reporting your post to the mods. It's just not worth it.
Yeah. Getting a post-up on post-operational brain donors is never worth the infraction costs.
Doesn't stop me from trying on som forums.
Lord of Weasles is certainly living up to my expectations for a POBD. But not to his name, oddly enough. He hasn't done any weasling yet.
In regards the books the DM was planning to sell, he was acting as custodian, not owner. He tends to sell off old quests and fluff that were bought by the group and buy those new quests and things he likes. We don't mind this, no ones out of pocket and we trust him to make good decisions for all of us. But the fact is, all but a small amount of a 3.5 material has been purchased as a co-operative effort, and those exceptions were bought as gifts for each other (mostly to him). The stuff he was planning to sell was mostly paid for by the players.
Now legally he may be owner of a good deal of it, as we are all more than generous when it comes to buying him presents for a better game of DnD, but as I've stated before, it's not really a matter of the technical limits one can stretch a relationship before it becomes an abuse of human rights, it's about solving a problem of how to deal with a problematic, but still quite human, DM.
PS Weasels, keep up the good work!
Lord of Weasles is certainly living up to my expectations for a POBD. But not to his name, oddly enough. He hasn't done any weasling yet.
I've got the same question for you, then.
Is the GM *obligated* to keep running a game he doesn't want to run? In your ideal world, right now, what would the GM in question do?
And I've got one new question: Does anyone else think it odd that the OP, whose sole forum post to date has been this thread complaining about a change to Pathfinder that he doesn't want or like, is using a custom Paizo Publishing mascot avatar?
In regards the books the DM was planning to sell, he was acting as custodian, not owner. He tends to sell off old quests and fluff that were bought by the group and buy those new quests and things he likes. We don't mind this, no ones out of pocket and we trust him to make good decisions for all of us. But the fact is, all but a small amount of a 3.5 material has been purchased as a co-operative effort, and those exceptions were bought as gifts for each other (mostly to him). The stuff he was planning to sell was mostly paid for by the players.
The gifts to him are his. Collective property, though, he *doesn't* have the right to sell, and that's just about the first point where I'll agree with you that his actions are unreasonable.
So, you've just answered *one* of my points. How about the rest?
it's not really a matter of the technical limits one can stretch a relationship before it becomes an abuse of human rights, it's about solving a problem of how to deal with a problematic, but still quite human, DM.
You still haven't answered what you think he *should* be doing, what you think he owes you, or why you can't just *keep playing without him*.
Weasels, I think he should do exactly what he agreed to do, and if that isn't working out for him to come to us about it.
*I'm losing perspective on this. Is there any chance he's going to start grasping this soon?
Weasels, I think he should do exactly what he agreed to do, and if that isn't working out for him to come to us about it.
To make this perfectly, explicitly clear:
You think the GM should continue running the 3.5 game, until your L8 characters finish the adventure that goes up to L20, because he's previously agreed to finish off this adventure before converting.
You're arguing that his quitting is in and of itself a jerk move and that he should have kept running the game, and that in your ideal world he would keep running the game.
Is that a correct summary of your position?
No. As I said before, have a good read of the whole thing, then if you have any questions at the end, I'll do what I can clear them up for you. You are doing well though, so don't worry.
I've got the same question for you, then.
Is the GM *obligated* to keep running a game he doesn't want to run? In your ideal world, right now, what would the GM in question do?
Anyone who agrees to do anything creates an obligation to honor their agreement.
Ideally, people only agree to things they are willing to see through.
No. As I said before, have a good read of the whole thing, then if you have any questions at the end, I'll do what I can clear them up for you.
How about "what about your position differs from my summary?" Does that help?
Gnevermore, quite right. I think it was WD Ross who first identified the specific duty of fullfilling an implicit promise that you are telling the truth when you agree to something.
Anyone who agrees to do anything creates an obligation to honor their agreement.Ideally, people only agree to things they are willing to see through.
So, Gnevermore sides with "quitting is itself a jerk move, the GM has an obligation to keep running the game", with the strong implication that the GM is failing to meet this obligation by quitting, regardless of his current desires or enjoyment.
TMFU?
Gnevermore, quite right.
Well, then, *that* was easy.
I think it was WD Ross who first identified the specific duty of fullfilling an implicit promise that you are telling the truth when you agree to something
And you wonder why I said you seem to feel some entitlement.
I suspect we're arguing different points.
Could be.
Take a look at the posts from the player, here. I'm seeing nothing but pure entitlement - the idea that the GM should have kept running the game, that the fact that he doesn't want to is irrelevant in the face of the players unanimously saying they want to keep going.
Not so. There were several posts - mine among them - that the group as a whole, both DM and players, should discuss the avaialble options and possible compromises.
The poster *just finished* saying that the GM selling *his own books* was clearly "not acceptable behaviour for a human being", and that's not even me indulging in hyperbole - that's a direct quote.
I know, and that claim was nonsense. The DM can do whatever he wants with his books. Again, though, I think he took the asshat approach. Were it I, and I really did want to completely divest myself of all my 3e material, I'd have offered it to my group/friends first knowing that they both lacked said mateiral and liked 3e. The "I'm eBaying it, chumps!" ploy seems just another power play.
Between that player's postings here, and his posing *as* the GM in a different thread where he admits to throwing out statements that, in his own words "are clearly written by a psychotic or a moron", I find his description of the GM's actions as particulary jerkish... uncompelling.
Yes, and bear in mind I was the one who cross-posted the links between the two threads to call attention to how fishy the whole thing seemed, but lacking any compelling evidence to the contrary we can only realistically discuss the scenario as presented.
What we have are two arguments.Argument #1: Quitting in this way was a jerk move and the GM shouldn't have done that because the way in which he quit was jerkish.
Argument #2: Quitting was a jerk move and the GM shouldn't have done that because only a total jerk would quit.
I understand you to be arguing #1, and I'm arguing that we have no reliable witness to say that the GM's behaviour was jerkish, and, in fact, we know our only witness to be unreliable. However, you keep agreeing with TMFU, who is switching back and forth erratically between #1 and #2. Which means that I wind up arguing against #2 with you, because you just agreed with a guy apparently espousing #2.
I'm not agreeing with him per se, I'm simply posting my take on the issue as presented. Our positions may occassionally be in agreement but they come about that agreement independently.
So, I'm trying to clarify. Which means, simplifying.I say #2 is complete nonsense. In general, any GM has the right to quit, just like any player does. Would you agree with this statement?
Of course.
Forget *how* it's said, or why he's quitting. It could be because he has leukemia and wants to go to Disneyworld before he dies, or it could be because the voices in his head have told him you're an evil repitilian alien. Any player has the right to drop any game, at any time, regardless of his position or importance to it, and the sole game-related recourse of the other players is to *not play with that guy again* if they don't like it. Would you agree with me, on this specific statement?
Yes. I was never arguing against that. My issue was always with the bullying "my way or the highway" power-trip element of the story.
And I've got one new question: Does anyone else think it odd that the OP, whose sole forum post to date has been this thread complaining about a change to Pathfinder that he doesn't want or like, is using a custom Paizo Publishing mascot avatar?
Actually, seeing as the Shackled City adventure itself was published by Paizo, I don't think it's odd at all.
I don't much like repeating myself weasel, but sure, why not. First of all, as I said before, we aren't playing past level 10, perhaps 12 if things go quickly. And we are due to level next session. Since 3.5 was released, I don't think we've had a single character above 12, and we wind up most groups before that.
As for what I think he's done wrong.... 1) He's reconsidered the road map we all agreed to (and invested in accordingly), and without telling any of us of his change of opinion, let alone discussing it prior to his own internal conclusion, he acted upon it as a final decision 2) Telling us that he's selling the materials we bought for him so he can speed up the schedule for the transfer, which up until that point he did not mention having any particular bias towards or against (which annoys me because it was a total shock). 3) Telling us that if we didn't accept that, he wouldn't want to play with us anymore, either as DM or player.
My problem is that I don't want him to be allowed to be this selfish without consequence, but I also still value him as a friend and roleplayer. I am looking for insight from people to possibley open up new dialoge with him on the matter before he alienates half the table.
As for your problem, you assumed that I and the topic creator, who are your ONLY sources of information regarding this matter, were misleading you either outright or by omission for some reason that only goes on in your head. For the future if you assume that people are telling you the truth, you will also find you make less mistakes when you make assumptions about them (and also when you don't bother reading what they have written). If you find that hard, try thinking of threads like this as hypothetical problems, where the only useful answer have to assume that the premises are not BS. I'm not saying this advice will solve your problems, but it might help you blend in.
Oh yes, we like Paizo. Very bigs fans of them and Green Ronin. That's why we all decided to play Pathfinder (after our 3.5 material had run it's course).
I notice a few things here, and I think that perhaps they should be brought into consideration.
Lord_Of_Weasels, it is pretty clear to me in this conversation that the OP is being not entirely rational. I don't mean that as a smear on him - he's currently arguing with a bunch of people over the internet about the implications of a series of events that any of us would find emotionally taxing. He feels hard done by, and comes by here to ask for some perspective and/or validation. He does it in a somewhat poor way (misrepresenting himself initially, providing straw man arguments and all that) but that's what he's doing. Currently, I imagine that he's got something of a conflict between his emotional reactions (which are currently driving him) and his reason - that would be why he came here in the first place. Now you are essentially pinning him into place and saying "rationally justify all of the arguments that you are making". Sadly, at least a few of the arguments that he's been making have been from emotional response, rather than constructive reasoning, so when you demand that he go back and declare to you his moral base principles, the only things he can possibly come up with that fully justify *all* of them are actually pretty unreasonable.
Of course, this is the internet - and worse yet, a heavily geekspace section of the internet. The internet is serious business, and anyone that *admits* that they're arguing from emotional response (because their DM is being obnoxious and petty) is basically admitting that they're Bad And Wrong, and no one wants to do that - so, particularly when approached in a hostile manner, he feels the need to back up his statements - which leads to him saying things that are a *lot* more extreme than what he'd really meant to begin with. ("He promised, so now he has to stick it out.") Of course, once he's said it, he has to stand by it, right? Otherwise, he'd have to admit that he was having an emotional reaction - and if he walks back into his gaming group with that sort of extreme attitude, it's not going to be good for *anyone*.
Let us relax a little, then. Give him some space to get the crazy out here, what of it there is, so that he can go back and actually try to smooth things over effectively with his friends, rather than making things worse. Discussions like this *always* get worse when you apply pressure.
Actually there is one small consideration that I shouldn't assume any of you readers have particularly spotted. This topic, and the one in the DMs section, were set up using only those facts that didn't make our DM look like a complete pillock from the off. There are two reasons for this, the first is that he was reading it and we didn't want to antagonise him any more than necessary, and the second was that if we did tell you every detail in the openning gambit, you'd rush right to the end and declare the guy's a maniac and we should all steer well clear.
Lord of Weasles is certainly living up to my expectations for a POBD. But not to his name, oddly enough. He hasn't done any weasling yet.I've got the same question for you, then.
Is the GM *obligated* to keep running a game he doesn't want to run? In your ideal world, right now, what would the GM in question do?
And I've got one new question: Does anyone else think it odd that the OP, whose sole forum post to date has been this thread complaining about a change to Pathfinder that he doesn't want or like, is using a custom Paizo Publishing mascot avatar?
RE: I would run a one-off with the rules I wanted to use, for two reasons: A.) I might not like running it as much as I think I will, and B.) it lets my players obtain familiarity, and we can talk about the changes, and make the game better for everyone. Ultimatums are inherently piss-poor social skills.
RE: the new question: who gives a rat's patootie?
And I've got one new question: Does anyone else think it odd that the OP, whose sole forum post to date has been this thread complaining about a change to Pathfinder that he doesn't want or like, is using a custom Paizo Publishing mascot avatar?Actually, seeing as the Shackled City adventure itself was published by Paizo, I don't think it's odd at all.
I did not know that. Okay, that question's answered, thank you.
Not so. There were several posts - mine among them - that the group as a whole, both DM and players, should discuss the avaialble options and possible compromises.
I'm entirely with you, on that. I just maintain, and have been maintaining, that if the GM really says "no more 3.5" and that's a complete dealbreaker for him, there's nothing you can *or should* do about that, which means your solutions need to avoid that as a possibility.
I know, and that claim was nonsense. The DM can do whatever he wants with his books. Again, though, I think he took the asshat approach. Were it I, and I really did want to completely divest myself of all my 3e material, I'd have offered it to my group/friends first knowing that they both lacked said mateiral and liked 3e. The "I'm eBaying it, chumps!" ploy seems just another power play.
Possibly. TMFU also claims now that the 3.5 books are partly/mostly shared property of the group. That, if true, *signficantly* changes the nature of the setup here.
But, given TMFU's posts here and in the other thread, I *do not* trust that his recounting of events and motivations is more than passingly accurate. Which means I'm entirely willing to consider that the GM may be taking pretty much exactly the actions he's accused of in the OP's post, and ascribe a much more sensible motivation to them than TMFU does.
I say #2 is complete nonsense. In general, any GM has the right to quit, just like any player does. Would you agree with this statement?Of course.
You should note, by the way, some of the posts since the one you're responding to: agreement on this is *not* universal, which is one of the reasons I was trying so hard to be perfectly, absolutely, explicitly clear.My issue was always with the bullying "my way or the highway" power-trip element of the story
And while I see that point, I also *don't believe* that all of what TMFU has added to the OP's statements is strictly correct about the GM's actions and motivations. If half of what he's saying is true, most players would be *finding a different GM* rather than *arguing that this GM owes it to them to come back*.
And when we step back to the original post, from Masrai, we see...
"Recently, our regular (and only) DM of over 10 years has decided to convert to the new Pathfinder rules, effective immediately."
Event 1: DM decides to change to Pathfinder.
"We are currently 8th Level out of a 20 level Quest, and have voted 5 to 1 (5 players to 1 DM) that we would like to stick with 3.5 until the current Quest's completion, changing over when it's all wrapped up."
Event 2: Players unanimously vote to keep playing 3.5, until their 8th level characters finish off the "up to 20" adventure. DM votes "OH JOHN RINGO NO"
"Upon this vote, our DM has delivered the ultimatum that we either convert to Pathfinder now or he'll stop running the campaign (and any other campaigns) altogether."
Event 3: DM points out that this is not a democracy - he is *not* running 3.5, he *will not* be running any more games if the group doesn't swap to Pathfinder, so it's Pathfinder or nothing.
"The basis of his arguement is that, being the DM, he puts all the work in week to week, so as he wants to change to Pathfinder, we should do it or find a new DM."
Event 4: DM explains that he's working his ass off, has for a decade, and wants to run Pathfinder. Since he wants to run Pathfinder, they can play, or not.
"Although the vote stood in the Players favour, even with years of gaming none of us have ever really taken on the responsibilities of DMing before, and therefore, is our DM's reaction understandable, or should it be viewed as rather harsh, or even immature, by ignoring our vote?"
Event 5: OP asks Internet Forum if GM making decision, listening to debate and vote, overruling decision, explaining decision, and refusing to change decision based on GM not *wanting* to do what they voted he should do, is reasonable.
So: GM says he wants to change to Pathfinder. Players say "No". GM says "I'm not running 3.5. I'm running Pathfinder. We can convert our current campaign, or you can find someone else to run 3.5, but I'm not running 3.5. It's a lot of work, I've been putting in tons of work for the last decade, and now I want to run Pathfinder, not 3.5".
According to Masrai's post, the GM has *already* discussed things with the players and explained his reasoning, and the GM has already reached the "Nope, not happening, no more 3.5 ever" point and re-iterated it for the PCs, despite their arguments and their vote saying they really didn't want to do that. I have *serious* trouble thinking of this as any kind of a **** move, based on the original post.
TMFU has, since then, added a pile more - but, as I said, I really don't find his estimations of the GM's opinions and statements entirely credible.
Lord_Of_Weasels, it is pretty clear to me in this conversation that the OP is being not entirely rational.
OP is not TMFU. For the record. TMFU is another player in the OP's group.
The rest of your post, I think is sensible, possible, and well-put.
Anyone who agrees to do anything creates an obligation to honor their agreement.Ideally, people only agree to things they are willing to see through.
So, Gnevermore sides with "quitting is itself a jerk move, the GM has an obligation to keep running the game", with the strong implication that the GM is failing to meet this obligation by quitting, regardless of his current desires or enjoyment.
No, I did not side with either of your flawed delineations. Failing to meet your obligations makes you untrustworthy. Lacking social sense and being obnoxious makes you a jerk. The two are independent traits.
No, I did not side with either of your flawed delineations. Failing to meet your obligations makes you untrustworthy. Lacking social sense and being obnoxious makes you a jerk. The two are independent traits.
But you *would* say that the GM has an obligation to keep running a game he isn't enjoying and doesn't want to run, just because he was running it in the past?
We are a group of friends, relatives, best men at weddings and godfathers to each other's children. We are looking for insight here people, insight into the mind of our beloved but twisted DM. Somehow, please grasp that if you don't know the detail of something in this scenario, it will probably stack in with the rest of the sentiment as it has been portrayed, because we've got no vested interest in hearing your opinion about a situation THAT DOES NOT EXIST!
I feel that the issue isn't so much that the DM is wanting to make the switch, so much as the way he's going about it.
Earlier this year, I had started a game; about a month in to it, I simply had no desire to run that particular game any longer. I had no real vision of the campaign -- no focus, no motivation, and no real end-point in mind. Basically, the whole thing was leaving a sour taste in my mouth.
So I sat the players down and explained this to them. I then said "hey, if you can give me about a month off to retool, then we can start something new, and it will be really cool". I also told them that I would continue this if they absolutely insisted, but I assured them that if that is what they decided, then it would be their fault if the game turned out to really suck. I also let them know that any of them were welcome to run if they didn't want to give me the time off to prepare (and I was genuine about it). I already had some ideas running around my head, and just went from there. New setting, new concept -- 3 months later, and this new campaign is a real hit.
However, there is 2 major differences between me and the DM in question on this thread: 1)I actually left the final decision up to the players; and 2)the last time I ran a pre-made adventure was my very first one, which was almost 15 years ago (and with only 1 year of playing under my belt). Which leads me to my next point: 1 of 2 things is going on with this DM -- a)he's not a competent campaign designer, or b)he's a lazy DM (possibly both).
The whole "I don't have any time to work on my own stuff" is garbage -- it's a matter of desire. Some of my best stuff has come about when I have had the least time to prepare. One of the most successful games I ever ran was when I was working 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. My last long-term game was HUGELY successful -- not only was I working full-time, but I was also taking 18-credit-hour semesters at the time. I've gone weeks at a time when I just ran everything in the game by the seat of my pants.
It has been expressed that this DM has been running for over 10 years (IIRC) -- am I supposed to believe that in all that time he has not developed some sort of concept of adventure design? How hard is it? Once you've got the setting, and once you've got the adventure/campaign concept, theme, plot, goals, and motivation, then what's left? -- throwing it out there and putting in some monsters. What's so hard about taking a couple of months off to actually do some work.
It's not the system -- it's a cop-out for not having any more material. He's too lazy to develop his own stuff, so he's taking it out on his players. If he approached a little differently, then I just might have some sympathy -- but this strong-arm crap because he knows that they don't really have any other options is pure power-play garbage; and as such, has violated the trust of his players.
I'm stunned that after just explaining everything to you, Weasel, that you are still living in your own little world, ignoring YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION regarding this matter and just plowing on with whatever pops into your head next.
I think we're back to a conclusion of a sociopath with a low IQ. Quite a lonely one too I guess because you cannot seem to grasp that the table is made up of friends, not simply people who roleplay together. Real friends? You know? Real people? Like the ones on that TV in your bedroom, you know the one that always shows the same picture of the street outside? Those are real people.
We are a group of friends, relatives, best men at weddings and godfathers to each other's children. We are looking for insight here people, insight into the mind of our beloved but twisted DM. Somehow, please grasp that if you don't know the detail of something in this scenario, it will probably stack in with the rest of the sentiment as it has been portrayed, because we've got no vested interest in hearing your opinion about a situation THAT DOES NOT EXIST!
Attacking the other posters does not assist your cause here.
On some level, I have to agree with him.
The man doesn't want to run 3.5. Neither do I.
You cannot force him to do so. No amount of Vote will change that.
The man's tactics are a little more armtwist than I think are considered polite, and he did sell you the materials that were his, rather than auctioning off the lot, so he's not a complete sociopath. Pathfinder, from what I've been told, isn't enough different from 3.5 to make it worth all this mess. in two different threads. Frankly, I'm starting to find it all a little complex myself. Having read the thread, I cannot believe you are as wronged as you believe yourself and you fellow players to be, and three have already capitulated, which means that they've had a rational discussion with the man and come to an agreement. If you want to play, go play. If not, then not.
Very simple.
I think we're back to a conclusion of a sociopath with a low IQ. Quite a lonely one too I guess because you cannot seem to grasp that the table is made up of friends, not simply people who roleplay together. Real friends? You know? Real people? Like the ones on that TV in your bedroom, you know the one that always shows the same picture of the street outside? Those are real people.
Not cool, man. Not cool.
No matter how much someone gets under your skin, name calling and insults are uncalled for.
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting/harassment is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I admit there's a fine line between voicing observation and actual name calling. But both sociopath and ownership of a low IQ can be easily varifiable by someone with a graduate degree or two in psychology. I'm prepared to have the thread tested. I'd be surprised if Weasel doesn't know one or two who are qualified already.
As for our DM not wanting to run 3.5, while he has stated that fact alone, he has given no explanation at all as to why. As I have said many times, up until this point he liked 3.5 for as far as anyone could tell. His discussion regarding the matter with us has not extended beyond what he understands to be his entitlement as the groups DM. His explanation for example has not included words such like 'I don't like 3.5' or 'It is too time consuming to DM', he has merely iterated in several ways 'We are playing pathfinder from now not DnD. If you don't like it, you can leave. I beleive the decision is mine to make.' The implication of course is that he doesn't feel he needs to explain himself, even if it appears hostile and/or insane.
On a related note my copy of Pathfinder is now with me. My first impression is 'Wow, that's all but 600 pages of very fimiliar book. '
Not cool, man. Not cool.No matter how much someone gets under your skin, name calling and insults are uncalled for.
I'm an old-school Usenet junkie; random insults really don't bother me, but thank you, I appreciate the sentiment.
I'm an old-school Usenet junkie; random insults really don't bother me, but thank you, I appreciate the sentiment.
Me too. I cut my teeth on RGFD back in the 90s. I've been called names that would get everyone in your gene pool banned if you posted them here.
Ah RGFD. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy…
I admit there's a fine line between voicing observation and actual name calling. But both sociopath and ownership of a low IQ can be easily varifiable by someone with a graduate degree or two psychology. I'm prepared to have the thread tested. I'd be surprised if Weasel doesn't know one or two who are qualified already.
Sociopathy is not all that readily diagnosed, and low IQ peoples wouldn't be here in the first place. In some societies, saying something like that without incontrovertible evidence of veracity is actionable in a court of law. In this case, it would be called Libel, and that is why posts were moderated.
As for our DM not wanting to run 3.5, while he has stated that fact alone, he has given no explanation at all as to why. As I have said many times, up until this point he liked 3.5 for as far as anyone could tell. His discussion regarding the matter with us has not extended beyond what he understands to be his entitlement as the groups DM. His explanation for example has not included words such like 'I don't like 3.5' or 'It is too time consuming to DM', he has merely iterated in several ways 'We are playing pathfinder from now not DnD. If you don't like it, you can leave. I beleive the decision is mine to make.' The implication of course is that he doesn't feel he needs to explain himself, even if it appears hostile and/or insane.
He'd be right. It's his call, and he's not required to inform you of his reasonings. Mind you, I have no idea what the fuss is about. Pathfinder is 3.5 with some new paint and a pile more classes.
On a related note my copy of Pathfinder is now with me. My first impression is 'Wow, that's all but 600 pages of very fimiliar book. '
I wonder why... Could it be a 3.5 repaint? Rather like 3.5 was to 3.0?
Why yes. Yes it is. If you want a new system, play a new system. If you want 3e Redux Redux, knock yourself out. All your 3.5 stuff still works. Same as the 3E stuff.
No, I did not side with either of your flawed delineations. Failing to meet your obligations makes you untrustworthy. Lacking social sense and being obnoxious makes you a jerk. The two are independent traits.But you *would* say that the GM has an obligation to keep running a game he isn't enjoying and doesn't want to run, just because he was running it in the past?
No, I would say he is obligated to do what he said he'd do. Lack of enjoyment it is the reason he choose not to fulfill his obligation.
B, you know full well this thread was originally started in a light-hearted way.
Some of your comments are a shade close to the bone. Try talking to your mates instead of trolling a message board. 
Regards,
Monkey
In some societies, saying something like that without incontrovertible evidence of veracity is actionable in a court of law. In this case, it would be called Libel, and that is why posts were moderated.
In the US, UK, and Canada, it would be legally actionable, although damages would be easiest in the UK. In France, you don't even have to be *lying* to be sued for saying bad things about people.
Depending on the jurisdiction, WotC could be held liable for hosting it. Which is *one* of the reasons they jump all over that kind of thing.
darkspartan, if you can't read the whole thing, why do you think commenting on one incomplete part is of any help? Personally, i find that ignorant comments that detract from the salient issue far more offensive than name calling. Oddly, and possibly uniquely, i find my views on name calling to be in accord with weasels.
And I rather thought liable required a demonstration that the statement was incorrect or at least non-verifiable but implicitily damaging of character. If there is a medically accurate name to describe what is more commonly known as being a sociopath, then I retract the word sociopath and replace it with that. Then both statements can be tested. To be on the safe side though (particularly in light of the fact he he may well have just been playing the horse), let me preface both sentiments with 'probably'.
M. Nice to know this isn't all going to waste. I'm still pished at Tinny though. If he wants to open the discussions with what the heck he's doing, my mobile is on. Until then it's just his ultimatum and as far as I know such a position only invites acceptance or consequences, not debate.
Message board though, plenty of debate. Of a sort.
B
In the US, UK, and Canada, it would be legally actionable, although damages would be easiest in the UK. In France, you don't even have to be *lying* to be sued for saying bad things about people.
Depending on the jurisdiction, WotC could be held liable for hosting it. Which is *one* of the reasons they jump all over that kind of thing.
Wizards of the Coast is up the road from here, in Seattle, WA. Paizio is down the road from there, in Bellevue. That make it United States tort law, and Wizards can be held liable.
All sounds pretty harsh in your country. I'd hate to live in fear like that. Sorry, i didn't realise the imposition.
See, that I agree with. And I happen to think that posting strawmen to an internet forum is pretty discourteous, myself.
And yet you keep on posting them yourself. It seems that everything you post revolves around the idea of the DM stopping because 3.5 is "intolerable," even though this seems to have no basis in fact, and would be a senseless argument anyway - if he finds 3.5 intolerable, logic would follow that the game everyone claims is damned near the same thing as 3.5 would be intolerable as well.
Wizards of the Coast is up the road from here, in Seattle, WA. Paizio is down the road from there, in Bellevue. That make it United States tort law, and Wizards can be held liable.
It actually depends on the *server*'s location (which is not likely to be WotC HQ), and the laws in the jurisdiction of the offended party, and how those laws interact with the laws of the nationstate hosting the server, and, and, and...
Point is, it's a terrible annoyance no matter who you are or what you're doing. DMCA takedowns are similar - even though nobody but the US-hosted machines are *required* to respect them, lots of people worldwide listen to them, because a DMCA takedown implies that the host country's laws have *often*, not always, be violated.
darkspartan, if you can't read the whole thing, why do you think commenting on one incomplete part is of any help? Personally, i find that ignorant comments that detract from the salient issue far more offensive than name calling. Oddly, and possibly uniquely, i find my views on name calling to be in accord with weasels.
And I rather thought liable required a demonstration that the statement was incorrect or at least non-verifiable but implicitily damaging of character. If there is a medically accurate name to describe what is more commonly known as being a sociopath, then I retract the word sociopath and replace it with that. Then both statements can be tested. To be on the safe side though (particularly in light of the fact he he may well have just been playing the horse), let me preface both sentiments with 'probably'.
And... Here's where your spelling is going to get you. Libel is saying anything defamatory in writing about someone else. You are liable for your words, should you not be able to prove that those words are true. Either way, the burden of proof is still on you.
I have in fact read the thread in great detail. I read them both. You can deal, or walk. You admit you're offended at the DM, and now you're whining when called on it. I agreed that his tactics suck. I also noted that he is within his rights.
May i never unestimate an American's usage of the language again. Thank you for the lesson. But don't forget the fact that the proposition is verifiable, which necessarily implies it can be proved true. And you must know i'm confident enough about that. At least confident enough to only preface it with probably.
As far as this discussion goes, what we are looking for is helping dealing with the situation of a petulent DM. I can't see how your approach of repeating the sentiment that 'a DMs rule is absolute' is of any help. If you'd read the debate, you'd know that. It's that very type of nonsense that's got us in this trouble in the first place. People like you have filled is hollow tin head with ideas that we're lucky to even have him, when, as I've stated before, we've got 2-3 other people willing and able to fill his role, but who desparately don't want to step on his toes. Even the suggestion of such a thing makes him retract even further from discussing the matter, so, we're looking for advice on what to do. Not a mechanical explanation of what his ultimatum implies.
Do you think either I or the original poster incapable of grasping an ultimatum? Honestly, underestimation apart, we're quite able.
May i never unestimate an American's usage of the language again. Thank you for the lesson. But don't forget the fact that the proposition is verifiable, which necessarily implies it can be proved true.
Or false.
As far as this discussion goes, what we are looking for is helping dealing with the situation of a petulent DM. I can't see how your approach of repeating the sentiment that 'a DMs rule is absolute' is of any help. If you'd read the debate, you'd know that. It's that very type of nonsense that's got us in this trouble in the first place. People like you have filled is hollow tin head with ideas that we're lucky to even have him, when, as I've stated before, we've got 2-3 other people willing and able to fill his role, but who desparately don't want to step on his toes.
So you have problems with a DM, and you have people ready, willing, and able to take over DMing. And the reason they're not taking over is because they don't want to hurt his feelings, while the contrary is (according to you) not true. May I ask why he is more special than you?
Even the suggestion of such a thing makes him retract even further from discussing the matter, so, we're looking for advice on what to do. Not a mechanical explanation of what his ultimatum implies.
Accept or walk. If you think he's not within his rights as DM, walk and someone else can DM.
Thanks Entropy_Judge. My understanding of the options left to us by our DM was however already clear.
But in today's news, I've taken a punt and contacted him directly to see if we can't come up with a solution that avoids breaking our social group dynamic, forces one or more players from the table or makes the DM feel like he has to walk.
Ah RGFD. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy…
Some days I really do miss RGFD. The sheer... lack of moderation was invigorating. Oh, people would be hurled the most vile insults but by God you learned to make your points clearly and properly support them or were Driven Out (or just ignored). A thread like this would have been resolved in 1/4 this number of posts with precisely the same results.
I have to echo the posters who have sympathized with the DM. Yes, it appears that the way he went about it was less than ideal, but there's NO reason he should be held to some promise he made to finish the quest. This is not a contractual arrangement. This is a game among friends, played for fun. The DM has the most work to do, and if he's no longer having fun, he has every right to announce that he doesn't want to do it anymore. The players should absolutely respect and accommodate that.
TMFU, you have said that your objective in this thread is to get some advice on how to deal with a "petulant DM." If you're asking about how to deal with his petulance, I recommend sitting down with him over your beverage of choice and saying, "DM, the other players and I had some issues with the way you went about this whole thing." I.e., discuss how he said it, not what he said.
If you're asking about how to deal with his ultimatum, other posters have already answered that succinctly: accept it, or walk.
The way I see things, you should always attempt to come to a group agreement that leaves everyone more or less happy. That way, the ship sails on calm water.
Take care, friends.
You should walk - DMs get to choose what to run but it becomes less of a choice if nobody wants to play it.
Get enough people to bow out and he'll practically be FORCED to run what you want.
DMs main job is to entertain the players so the players got to show them what it is they want.
Trust me, it will be no fun if everyone wants to be playing something else and the DM runs the show.
Hi All
My group are currently working our way through The Shackled City Quest using 3.5 rules.
Recently, our regular (and only) DM of over 10 years has decided to convert to the new Pathfinder rules, effective immediately.
We are currently 8th Level out of a 20 level Quest, and have voted 5 to 1 (5 players to 1 DM) that we would like to stick with 3.5 until the current Quest's completion, changing over when it's all wrapped up.
Upon this vote, our DM has delivered the ultimatum that we either convert to Pathfinder now or he'll stop running the campaign (and any other campaigns) altogether.
The basis of his arguement is that, being the DM, he puts all the work in week to week, so as he wants to change to Pathfinder, we should do it or find a new DM.
Although the vote stood in the Players favour, even with years of gaming none of us have ever really taken on the responsibilities of DMing before, and therefore, is our DM's reaction understandable, or should it be viewed as rather harsh, or even immature, by ignoring our vote?
Has anyone else had a similar situation before? Any opinions would be welcome!
So... none of you have ever been dungeon master... which tells me that you are all like me and my friends: we like to play and enjoy soemone else's campaign...
Almost all the dungeon masters I have ever experienced, they never stuck with one system forever. We often had to make new characters, rewrite old characters, have current characters thrown into different worlds. We never imagined rebelling against it: I mean a game is a game, and someone was offering to run it for us.
On the other hand, the dungeon masters with whom we consistently played were also very imaginative, some in creating epic stories and some in creating hilarious situations, so the system or world never mattered. (That said, I always excused myself from modern or science fiction games, except for Call of Cthulhu.)
Hi All
My group are currently working our way through The Shackled City Quest using 3.5 rules.
Recently, our regular (and only) DM of over 10 years has decided to convert to the new Pathfinder rules, effective immediately.
We are currently 8th Level out of a 20 level Quest, and have voted 5 to 1 (5 players to 1 DM) that we would like to stick with 3.5 until the current Quest's completion, changing over when it's all wrapped up.
Upon this vote, our DM has delivered the ultimatum that we either convert to Pathfinder now or he'll stop running the campaign (and any other campaigns) altogether.
The basis of his arguement is that, being the DM, he puts all the work in week to week, so as he wants to change to Pathfinder, we should do it or find a new DM.
Although the vote stood in the Players favour, even with years of gaming none of us have ever really taken on the responsibilities of DMing before, and therefore, is our DM's reaction understandable, or should it be viewed as rather harsh, or even immature, by ignoring our vote?
Has anyone else had a similar situation before? Any opinions would be welcome!
Your DM sounds like he's burnt out, and the new ruleset is his last ditch attempt to keep the game interesting for himself. A DM who is into the game would not drop such a severe ultimatum if he really wanted to keep at it. He's looking for a change or a way out. You might need to start looking for a new DM. Sorry, my 2 cents.