So, the options are:
1. I stop the GM from running the game he wants, making me kind of a selfish crumb, or
2. I play in the GM's game even though I'm not going to enjoy it and, without consciously intending to, will probably screw it up.
Which one's the lesser of two evils here?
- Are you 100% positive that you cannot play a character that fits in, and that you can enjoy without the expense of your friends' enjoyment of the game? Like, you've thought of all the options? It's important to make sure.
- Is your GM and are your other friends set on this game? It's easy to feel like you'd be disrupting their fun by forcing them to pick a different game, but maybe the GM is fine with changing the game to another ruleset, and maybe so are the players.
Now, with those sorta useless nitpick ideas out of the way (they need to be explored a little, just to make sure you haven't forgotten to be thorough), here's what I think. You don't like the system and the world, and you would not enjoy a character that fits in. Is it heresy to make a character that doesn't fit in? Maybe your character can be anachronistic. Teleported from another dimension or something. You could concoct a bunch of rules that would apply to your character's progression (I assume it's at least a level-base system), and ask the GM if he has any concerns about what you've created. Make what you enjoy, and make it work with the rest of the group.
Otherwise, I suggest that you tell the GM in the most frank manner possible that you just won't enjoy it, and you're sure the others will enjoy it just as much without you. The GM has to be willing to take one for the team here as much as you. He/she has to accept that you can't play. And it probably won't be any easier for you to deny the opportunity to play alongside your friends.
OH, bonus advice I just thought of. Ask to be a GM assistant, maybe. If you can't enjoy being a player but like these people, hang out with them and be useful about it. See what you can do to make adjudicating their games easier, and still be there as the GM wants you to. Maybe voice an NPC now and again.
First is first.
- Are you 100% positive that you cannot play a character that fits in, and that you can enjoy without the expense of your friends' enjoyment of the game? Like, you've thought of all the options? It's important to make sure.
Yes. I hate the world, the mechanics of the game, the customs of the world, everything about it, though the GM loves it. Every time he says something about the game world, my brain invariable goes 'Well, THAT'S stupid'.
- Is your GM and are your other friends set on this game? It's easy to feel like you'd be disrupting their fun by forcing them to pick a different game, but maybe the GM is fine with changing the game to another ruleset, and maybe so are the players.
I don't know about 'dead set'. I know one other player likes the world, and one other can at least accept it; the fourth player is a cypher on the subject. He's said that he doesn't want to run D&D for fear of getting us burned out on it. I don't see it happening, myself.
Now, with those sorta useless nitpick ideas out of the way (they need to be explored a little, just to make sure you haven't forgotten to be thorough), here's what I think. You don't like the system and the world, and you would not enjoy a character that fits in. Is it heresy to make a character that doesn't fit in? Maybe your character can be anachronistic. Teleported from another dimension or something.
One of the game world's standards is xenophobia and humanocentrism, and if you don't go with the rules, you can get punished in a variety of ways, though the usual one is getting killed. There's no 'bucking the system'; you play by society's rules or you get screwed over. Heck, not kissing sufficient ass can get you killed.
One of the game world's standards is xenophobia and humanocentrism, and if you don't go with the rules, you can get punished in a variety of ways, though the usual one is getting killed. There's no 'bucking the system'; you play by society's rules or you get screwed over. Heck, not kissing sufficient ass can get you killed.
Ravenloft?
I know how you feel. Sometimes, you're just not that into a game.
Have you tried getting the DM to throw a twist on the world? If xenophobia and humanocentrism are issues, why don't you all play high-powered monstrous PC's, in an attempt to wreck the social order? It seems to me that you don't like playing with this social hierarchy, have you tried tearing it down? The DM might find it fun to DM a game where you wreck said game world.
It shows when you aren't having a good time, and if you really are close with these people, they will try to cheer you up, which will probably end with disbanding the game anyway...
[
One of the game world's standards is xenophobia and humanocentrism, and if you don't go with the rules, you can get punished in a variety of ways, though the usual one is getting killed. There's no 'bucking the system'; you play by society's rules or you get screwed over. Heck, not kissing sufficient ass can get you killed.
Ah, Dark Heresy? or Rogue Trader? Generally speaking, you play in the 40k setting to play because of its xenophobic, paranoid, humanocentric characters, so I can't blame you for not wanting to play it. I don't think the rules of these systems support doing anything else, but I could be wrong.
All I can really say is that it's worth it to give your friends the benefit of the doubt, and try everything once. If you still don't dig it, then don't play.
OK, so you won't be able to enjoy it as a player.
Is it possible for you to simply play assorted NPCs in RP situations & various monsters in combat?
This way the group isn't deprived of your company, the DM gets to run his game, you get to enjoy the story from a different perspective/challenge.... And - best of all - you don't have to always be there either.
Legend of the Five Rings, but good guesses.
I would've guessed Vampire if not for the humanocentrism, but yeah, L5R is in a very similar boat on the whole 'locked into the social mechanism which you must obey or die' front. I adore the setting but I can't really imagine playing in it.
Having been in a very similar situation with Vampire, I'd advise that you explain your feelings to the DM (It's not you, it's the setting) and stay out of it. The DM will either end up punishing you if you don't play along, changing the game to keep from punishing you for not playing along, or sense that you're not having fun if you do play along and feel as though it's zir fault. You'll be a downer, and if you can convince the DM to run it without you I'd recommend doing so. If not... better that it not happen, really.
Someone in the game group is wanting to start up a game (non-D&D, not that it matters for the particulars of the argument). However, I know from past experience with this game system/world that I do not like it and will not enjoy it; it will be impossible for me to play a character that fits in the world. When I mention sitting out, though, the GM says that he doesn't want to run the game without me there; it's a pretty tightly-knit group, which has its upsides ... and now, a downside.
So, the options are:
1. I stop the GM from running the game he wants, making me kind of a selfish crumb, or
2. I play in the GM's game even though I'm not going to enjoy it and, without consciously intending to, will probably screw it up.
Which one's the lesser of two evils here?
1 = it is not selfish to choose not to play a game that you know you won't enjoy. 2 = you are doing others as great a disfavor as you do to yourself to submit to playing a game you know you do not like.
Why would you really even be considering this?
You could create a similar agreement with the L5R lover: you give the game an honest try for one adventure/chapter/session/whatever and then he has to try something that you want. (Or if he's that kind of flake, you make him do your thing first.) It doesn't even have to be rp related; maybe you need someone to talk to about a great book you've read.
Good luck, Salla
Someone in the game group is wanting to start up a game (non-D&D, not that it matters for the particulars of the argument). However, I know from past experience with this game system/world that I do not like it and will not enjoy it; it will be impossible for me to play a character that fits in the world. When I mention sitting out, though, the GM says that he doesn't want to run the game without me there; it's a pretty tightly-knit group, which has its upsides ... and now, a downside.
So, the options are:
1. I stop the GM from running the game he wants, making me kind of a selfish crumb, or
2. I play in the GM's game even though I'm not going to enjoy it and, without consciously intending to, will probably screw it up.
Which one's the lesser of two evils here?
I've been in a similar situation only the DM was not the kind to worry if someone wanted to sit out.
Sitting out is by far the best option in my opinion. Since that seems to be difficult and your group is tight you may just have to sit down and have a discussion about what to play. If the rest of the group is really interested then ask to sit out. Let them know that choosing a game you dislike does not upset you and that sitting out isn't going to make you not want to play future games with them. Everyone has their preferences and it's OK to want to take a break from gaming if you will be unhappy with the system.
If this is the only time you have to get together with this group of friends, stop by on game night every so often, before the game starts, and chat for a bit to keep in touch.
If you're not having fun, nobody else will have fun because a non-fun-having player at the table is an unbelievable downer.
Thus, by playing, you will ruin the game.
By not playing, you might ruin the game because the GM doesn't want to run it without you.
Possible ruination vs certain ruination = sit it out, explain why, and if the game doesn't run without you, that's not your problem any more.
Someone in the game group is wanting to start up a game (non-D&D, not that it matters for the particulars of the argument). However, I know from past experience with this game system/world that I do not like it and will not enjoy it; it will be impossible for me to play a character that fits in the world. When I mention sitting out, though, the GM says that he doesn't want to run the game without me there; it's a pretty tightly-knit group, which has its upsides ... and now, a downside.
So, the options are:
1. I stop the GM from running the game he wants, making me kind of a selfish crumb, or
2. I play in the GM's game even though I'm not going to enjoy it and, without consciously intending to, will probably screw it up.
Which one's the lesser of two evils here?
1 = it is not selfish to choose not to play a game that you know you won't enjoy. 2 = you are doing others as great a disfavor as you do to yourself to submit to playing a game you know you do not like.
Why would you really even be considering this?
It's kind of a circular logic thing. Mucho paraphrasing/trimming --
"I want to run this game."
"I don't really like that game, so I'll sit out."
"But I want you in the game."
"But I don't like that game. Everybody else does, so run it for them."
"If you're not going to be in the game, I won't run it."
So, we get this 'he wants to run the game, but he won't run it if I don't play' clusterf*** going. It makes me feel selfish because I feel like I'm putting my wants ahead of his (or rather, my dislikes ahead of his wants). The game group is pretty much the whole extent of the social network, so he wants us all there every week, I guess.
It's messed up.
It's kind of a circular logic thing. Mucho paraphrasing/trimming --
"I want to run this game."
"I don't really like that game, so I'll sit out."
"But I want you in the game."
"But I don't like that game. Everybody else does, so run it for them."
"If you're not going to be in the game, I won't run it."
So, we get this 'he wants to run the game, but he won't run it if I don't play' clusterf*** going. It makes me feel selfish because I feel like I'm putting my wants ahead of his (or rather, my dislikes ahead of his wants). The game group is pretty much the whole extent of the social network, so he wants us all there every week, I guess.
It's messed up.
A textbook example of Geek Social Fallacy #5.
Yes, it's messed up. However, you playing will make the game non-fun for everyone. You not playing will allow the game to be fun. So sit it out.
The thing is, if I sit the game out, there is no game, for anybody (at least from that GM).
Yeah, that looks about right, LordOfWeasels.
The thing is, if I sit the game out, there is no game, for anybody (at least from that GM).
If you play, the game will be no fun for anyone, which is *worse* than no game. If the GM refuses to run any game that is not L5R and does not include you, the GM is saying "I will not run any games".
Yeah, that looks about right, LordOfWeasels.
The thing is, if I sit the game out, there is no game, for anybody (at least from that GM).
Tell him to stop guilt tripping you into playing.
He wants to run the game or he wouldn't have brought it up. He wants you to play, which is cool, but you do not want to play, which is also cool. He has decided to make you feel like the game is in your hands by saying he will not run the game if you do not play. You need to tell him that you are not playing and if he decides to not run the game, that is his choice, but you will not be his scape goat.
One of the game world's standards is xenophobia and humanocentrism
Heh, my first thought was Rifts.
I really have nothing new to add to the replies given - if you won't have fun, don't play. The GM may try to guilt you into it, but should you really feel guilty for averting an unpleasant experience for everyone? If this GM is so incapable of give-and-take, I have to wonder how they are when they run the game...
first and foremost, its very mature of you to see that you may sabotage the game if you take part in it. most players would "give it a go" and then point out the flaws and failures in the game. thus destroying whatever fun would be in the game for the other players with constant mouth pollution.
second, yes... you actually are being somewhat selfish. with that point said it becomes irrelevant the moment the dm "pigeon-holds" you to his game.
other people have given great advice such as suck it up this time then play what you want later, or dont play at all, but you mentioned this as a close knit group of friends.
what you DONT want to do is trash what he likes by belittling the system, the fluff, and basically everything you just mentioned here in the op ;)
trust me in this fact that chances are your friends know exactly how you feel about the game without the laundry list. it would be insulting to press the issue further. simply tell your friend that your mind is set, you mean no offence but you have to stand firm on this issue.
i don't recommend you attend however. it would be a reminder to your friend and others on how stubborn you were, and they may want to switch games to appease you. let them have their fun with this game and hop on the next one when its somthing you want to play.
A game involving exploring the Shadowlands wouldn't nearly be as restricting. And if an adventure here or there takes you into places where you have to be more socially aware... well, its not like every game is perfect.
Or perhaps suggest a Burning Sands game. Same world, just north of Rokugan. Don't know if that would appeal to the DM or not.
Maybe there is some amount of compromise that can be made that is between the two options you are giving.
MY suggestion...
Play a samurai... follow orders... be quiet when you can. The system is about talking to people and politics, fighting is for the battlefield against enemy clans and oni.
In another group with 3 shared players (including myself) I felt not able to veto Call of Cthulu. I still played, and still managed to have fun (albeit whilst gritting my teeth from time-to-time about the meta-gaming from other CoC players that is one of the things that drives me nuts about the game).
The difference was that the first group all pulled in different directions, and it was OK to be more vocal. The second group was more reserved, and I was the only player with reservations.
In both groups, it helped that any and all of us could DM, so you could seriously float ideas.
My suggestion? Without trying to buck or spoil the game with something deal-breaking, just stop taking it too seriously, and play your character like he or she was a favourite NPC whilst you were DM-ing. It's still possible to have lots of fun that way, and still stay within the constraints of the setting.
To me it sounds like the OP is going out of the way to rail against the system. LFR is a setting heavy system. and a majority of the setting is "The system" ie lords, samurai, peasants. OP seems to think that's bad, a RIGID social class, and OP simply can't except it and refuses to look at it from a different perspective, so he defaults to "bucking the system" which will get you killed with a swiftness unless you are also a master in combat(and even if you survive you're a hunted ronin).
MY suggestion...
Play a samurai... follow orders... be quiet when you can. The system is about talking to people and politics, fighting is for the battlefield against enemy clans and oni.
This still doesn't solve the base problem of 'I won't be having any fun'.
1) You dislike the humanocentric and xenophobic elements of Rokugan culture.
Ask the DM if you could play a foreigner or a non-human class. You'd have to deal with the racism and social intolerance that's thrown at you from the NPCs (and possibly the fellow PCs as well), but at least you won't have to bow down to every single social nicety and nuance.
2) You dislike the ass-kissing and the social maneuvering that is prevalent in these kind of games.
Either play someone from a minor clan, or a gruff, monosyllabic samurai from the Crab clan. More often than not, you'll get ignored by the NPCs or they won't expect you to kiss-ass, as you're a 'speak with my tetsubo' type of person.
Bring up what you dislike about the setting and the system with the DM. I am uncertain, but I'm assuming that DM plans to use the original L5R system. Ask if it's possible to play the d20 translation instead (the familiarity might be comforting). Ask if it's possible that he tones down the xenophobia just a smidge. Ask if it's alright to be ronin or a clanless person.
If the DM is deadset on doing it his way, gently tell him that you won't have fun and it's going to be pointless. If he opts to not run because you're not going to play, pick up the DM-ing hat and run something you know everyone will like.
(It's not selfish at all, btw. There's no reason to engage in a recreational activity if you won't derive any fun from it. It is, however, somewhat selfish to resort to emotional blackmail just so you have a full group when you start running your campaign.)
In any case, YMMV. Just talk it over with the DM and with everybody else concerned. Your option only affects yourself, but his option affects the entire group. Make sure you get their input on it as well.
Yeah, that looks about right, LordOfWeasels.
The thing is, if I sit the game out, there is no game, for anybody (at least from that GM).
And YOU need only understand that that is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. It's the problem of the GM who wishes to restrict his own game in that way.
Your choice is whether or not YOU want to participate. It is the GM's decision whether or not to run the game, how, and why. It's NOT your responsibility to make sure everyone EXCEPT you is having fun. Once having made your wishes known to NOT play the system the DM is only being an ASS if he is attempting to coerce you to play against your wishes by furthering your misperception that you are in ANY way obliged to him and the other players.
You don't want to play - you don't have to play. Whether or not the game then even takes place is squarely on the DM's shoulders and no matter what he says to YOU it's not your concern - it's all his.
Bring up what you dislike about the setting and the system with the DM. I am uncertain, but I'm assuming that DM plans to use the original L5R system. Ask if it's possible to play the d20 translation instead (the familiarity might be comforting).
Ugh. Going from a boring setting, boring premise, and cripplingly flawed system to the same boring setting, the same boring premise, and a new, boring, generic, AND cripplingly flawed system?
Not an improvement.
But seriously: I don't get why "Not interested in that game, you guys go have fun playing without me and please do call me up for things that don't involve that setting/system/whatever in the future" is so complicated, or why so many people seem insistent that the OP should play *anyway*.
- First, straight flat don't play a traditional samurai/monk/shugenja/etc character. You won't like it, and the game as a whole will suffer.
- Second, figure out which parts of the game suck to you, and see how far you can get the focus of the game moved from them.
-- If you can shift play to the Crab Clan lands, and build your character as a skilled ratling ally of the clan, then the overall politicing will be cut down to a dull roar (because the crab don't go for that much in the first place) and you won't be expected to do any of it yourself. You'll also still have a clan (and one that's powerful in the local area) who will have reasons to like you and be unhappy with any outsider humans who mess with you, so you shouldn't get too much grief. As long as the thought itself doesn't make your stomach churn you might try running for a few sessions to see if you can tolerate it. If you can't, the character is easy enough to write back out of campaign (the plot leads away from the crab lands and your character refuses to go) and you can let the rest of the party finish without you.
-- If you can shift it even farther, you might be able to get a Shadowlands evil campaign going (assuming that that's something you'd enjoy). Actually, I think that you might find playing a terrifying creature of darkness who mocks various samurai for their absurd senses of honor before slaughtering and consuming them somewhat cathartic. Depending on your tolerance for watching other people politic, you might be able to play an oni even in an non-shadowlands game.
-- If you don't like the rules system (and it is an odd little beast) then see if you can get them to play the d20 version.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the parts that your DM enjoys *are* the parts that you detest. If that's the case, then you're going to want to sit this one out, for your benefit and for theirs. If the other DM isn't willing to run anything else - well, have you considered offering to run something yourself for a while?
But seriously: I don't get why "Not interested in that game, you guys go have fun playing without me and please do call me up for things that don't involve that setting/system/whatever in the future" is so complicated, or why so many people seem insistent that the OP should play *anyway*.
It's not complicated in itself, but groups of friends are complicated. I expect everyone is bringing their preconceptions of how close their own gaming groups are, and how easy it is to get both alternate games and be back in that original group again when they start to play something the OP is interested in. In reality that is what the OP has to get a measure of - just how much is at stake regarding that gaming group (and what alternatives could happen), compared to how bad it would really be to play the game.
In my two groups, ultimately the gaming group getting together at all was much higher priority than the actual game played. This did lead to players (and DMs) accepting things that were less than ideal for them within the games, and also to a typical adventure length of 4-6 months with only very few recurring "campaigns". If, as a player, you have other game options available, or you see those friends in other contexts then I very much expect YMMV.
On the other hand, if the OP's hatred for the game is such that every second of playing it would be complete agaony then of course don't play, whatever the blackmail!
Our regular DM introduced us to savage worlds a while ago and he likes both systems. I will play SW if the group plays it, but do not enjoy it as much. The setting and fluff is fine, but the combat is boring for me. Last session my character went down in the first round of the combat and remained unconscious for the rest of the session so for over an hour I had nothing to do, but look at potential new characters if my character did not make it. And I was not being particularly reckless, that is just how the mechanics work in that system if the DM gets a lucky roll.
Our solution is to split between the two. I skip some of the savage world campaigns and the guy who does not like 4E won't show up for any future 4E campaigns we do.
Personally, I'd have the following reactions.
- First, straight flat don't play a traditional samurai/monk/shugenja/etc character. You won't like it, and the game as a whole will suffer.
- Second, figure out which parts of the game suck to you, and see how far you can get the focus of the game moved from them.
-- If you can shift play to the Crab Clan lands, and build your character as a skilled ratling ally of the clan, then the overall politicing will be cut down to a dull roar (because the crab don't go for that much in the first place) and you won't be expected to do any of it yourself. You'll also still have a clan (and one that's powerful in the local area) who will have reasons to like you and be unhappy with any outsider humans who mess with you, so you shouldn't get too much grief. As long as the thought itself doesn't make your stomach churn you might try running for a few sessions to see if you can tolerate it. If you can't, the character is easy enough to write back out of campaign (the plot leads away from the crab lands and your character refuses to go) and you can let the rest of the party finish without you.
-- If you can shift it even farther, you might be able to get a Shadowlands evil campaign going (assuming that that's something you'd enjoy). Actually, I think that you might find playing a terrifying creature of darkness who mocks various samurai for their absurd senses of honor before slaughtering and consuming them somewhat cathartic. Depending on your tolerance for watching other people politic, you might be able to play an oni even in an non-shadowlands game.
-- If you don't like the rules system (and it is an odd little beast) then see if you can get them to play the d20 version.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the parts that your DM enjoys *are* the parts that you detest. If that's the case, then you're going to want to sit this one out, for your benefit and for theirs. If the other DM isn't willing to run anything else - well, have you considered offering to run something yourself for a while?
This. Really, honestly, there is a lot more to L5R than just kissing ass and xenophobia. There are a lot more things to explore and see if you just look. The thing is, either just suck it up, try and find what you can enjoy from the system with an open mind, (who knows, you might find that there are aspects you don't hate) or if you don't think you can do that, just step out and don't worry about it. You aren't obligated to play in every game just because he wants you to.
I mean if you go in with the attitude of "I'M GOING TO HATE THIS ARGHHH!" then no you won't like it, but maybe give it a chance, give it a few game sessions and suggest some movements to a less kissassy location such as the Crab Lands or hell even the Shadowlands. (Or a Kolat game, or even seeing if he would be interested in Burning Sands instead) . Its not like you can't quit after a few sessions and say, sorry guys, but it isn't doing it for me.
(and with this action, after you quit, maybe the other players can convince the GM to go on without you :P)
Edited: to say what I meant originally but failed to type properly. [Thanks Collycauseschaos for pointing out the sillyness of how I had written that.]
This. Really, honestly, there is a lot more to L5R than just kissing ass and xenophobia. There are a lot more things to explore and see if you just look. The thing is, either just suck it up, try and find what you can enjoy from the system with an open mind, who knows, you might find that there are aspects you don't hate. If you go in with the attitude of "I'M GOING TO HATE THIS ARGHHH!" then no you won't like it, but maybe give it a chance, give it a few game sessions and suggest some movements to a less kissassy location such as the Crab Lands or hell even the Shadowlands. (Or a Kolat game, or even seeing if he would be interested in Burning Sands instead) . Its not like you can't quit after a few sessions and say, sorry guys, but it isn't doing it for me.
(and with this action, after you quit, maybe the other players can convince the GM to go on without you :P)
You sounded like you were giving Salla an alternative there in the third sentence. You're clearly a fan of the setting, but can you accept that some people just don't like certain rules systems and settings? It's very simple, and some people can't get into the game.
I reiterate my original point, which is similar to some others in this thread.
Talk to your DM. Ask him if you can take out the traditional social class hierarchy and other bullspit you don't like about the system. Ask him if he can change the campaign basis to make the game something you enjoy more. Tell him you hate the asskissing and you refuse to do it. Tell him you hate the xenophobia of the setting and wish to abandon it. If the other players and the DM don't want to play a game that you do, or vice versa, just don't play.
Simply decline, and find something else to do.
You sounded like you were giving Salla an alternative there in the third sentence. You're clearly a fan of the setting, but can you accept that some people just don't like certain rules systems and settings? It's very simple, and some people can't get into the game.
Haha, actually, I meant to but my brain shut off halfway through... (pain pills... and typing isn't the easiest thing for me with a broken wrist), the either or was supposed to be "or if you don't think you can do that, just step out and don't worry about it you aren't obligated to play in every game just because he wants to."
You sounded like you were giving Salla an alternative there in the third sentence. You're clearly a fan of the setting, but can you accept that some people just don't like certain rules systems and settings? It's very simple, and some people can't get into the game.
Haha, actually, I meant to but my brain shut off halfway through... (pain pills... and typing isn't the easiest thing for me with a broken wrist), the either or was supposed to be "or if you don't think you can do that, just step out and don't worry about it you aren't obligated to play in every game just because he wants to."
Well then we were in agreement all along, no hard feelings.
If yes: play in the game and try to enjoy yourself. Especially if the rest of the group are good friends, too, and they want to play in this game. Surely it won't be that bad. Sometimes you just have to do things for your friends that you don't want to do. And you never know, you might end up having fun (unless you've played an L5R game with this person as the GM, in which case you probably know what you're in for...). If you don't have fun, try to talk to him about ways that the game could be changed so that you would have more fun. Compromises must be made in any relationship (and yes, that goes both ways, btw).
If no: you are under no obligation to play. "Thanks for the invite, but I'm gonna have to pass. Hope y'all have fun."
I'd politely explain to the DM that I have no desire to play this game and whether or not he/she runs this game without me is their call. If the DM persists I might also tell him/her to stop being a guilt-tripping jerk.
Also if the DM does start up a different game just to keep me in and that causes issues with the group (e.g. the DM or others are upset because we couldn't play the other game), I would simply quit gaming with them entirely.
And yes, this is how I would handle the matter with my closest friends. People shouldn't try to jerk their friends around like that anyhow.
Sit out. If the DM doesn't like it then that's too bad. It's his choice to not run the game, not yours.
Yup. Blunt and right, this one. Your DM is making the choice to be difficult, and it is not a burden you should bother with.
Is the GM a good friend?
If yes: play in the game and try to enjoy yourself. Especially if the rest of the group are good friends, too, and they want to play in this game. Surely it won't be that bad. Sometimes you just have to do things for your friends that you don't want to do. And you never know, you might end up having fun (unless you've played an L5R game with this person as the GM, in which case you probably know what you're in for...). If you don't have fun, try to talk to him about ways that the game could be changed so that you would have more fun. Compromises must be made in any relationship (and yes, that goes both ways, btw).
If no: you are under no obligation to play. "Thanks for the invite, but I'm gonna have to pass. Hope y'all have fun."
Even if he is a good friend, he shouldn't be obligated to play something he doesn't want to. What his DM is doing is unfair and completely irrational.
Even if he is a good friend, he shouldn't be obligated to play something he doesn't want to. What his DM is doing is unfair and completely irrational.
Yes, this is true, and the DM is wrong to try to bully people into playing his game ("bully" might be too strong a word; he actually seems more "whiney"). I did ignore this in my reply and instead focused on the OP's distaste for the setting/system. If the issue were just the distaste, yeah, I would go ahead and try the game. The fact that the DM is trying to force him to play could be (and probably should be) a deal breaker; I might try the game, anyway, or not.
But you're right; he isn't obligated to play if he doesn't want to for any reason, good friend or not.