|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 29, 2013 7:06:01 GMT -8
CAVEAT: For this convo, the answer cannot be find another group. Assume the group is tight, but with one dissenting POV.
There is a discussion going on wherein a GM is running game X for his group, but is not a fan of it. the plot and characters (concepts) seem to not be an issue, it is just the wrong system for the GM; prep required, crunch, effort to make it work the way s/he wants, etc.
The GM prefers to run system Y but it seems as if the group is slightly resistant. Well, one person seems to be very outspoken at least. The rest were indicated as being okay with trying system Y out as they have some issues with system X.
What I am curious to know, from the opinions here, how much right, vote, say, weight, etc does the GM have when deciding which system will be run? If a GM is the go to GM for a group, but does not like to run a certain system, does s/he get more say? GMs do more work for the game, story, npcs, speaking/acting/thinking continuously for 4+ hours, etc.
I am not sure. I like to think of the group as egalitarian, but to make someone run a system that is not in their wheel house seems silly as well. if they are not into the system, the game will more than likely suffer. If they shift or house rule game X to resemble game Y, why bother? Why not play game Y (aside from the team not wanting to switch)?
I am in this situation now with Pathfinder, and it got me thinking of how far I can push for a different system.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 29, 2013 7:40:23 GMT -8
Alternate systems after the conclusion of a campaign arc. Means running two separate campaigns though. Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 8:15:43 GMT -8
If the GM isn't having fun the game is going to suffer. Thus the GM should be running a system they enjoy playing. Every player, including the GM, should have an equal vote in what game is played, but the GM always has final say since you can't play the vast majority of systems without a GM.
If there is one player who really likes a system and a GM who doesn't perhaps that player should run it. Using Kainguru's suggestion have two games going. One with the system the current GM likes and one in the current system run by the player who wants it.
The longterm effect of running a system you don't like is burnout that could eventually end with no game at all.
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 29, 2013 8:22:50 GMT -8
I could see that working, save if the GM does not want to play or run system X. That begins to sound like my way or the highway, but then again, some people refuse to play anything other than system X, so they are also unreasonable, no?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 29, 2013 10:00:57 GMT -8
Ohhhh - now we are on the sharp horns of a dilemma: GM won't play X, player A won't play Y, player A will GM X, GM won't GM X, GM will GM Y. The equation won't balance without another variable which we'll call V. The solution is in identifying V - which is basically a game because if V is player it still won't work (given that one cannot eliminate GM or Player A ref: caveat). Now my head hurts . . . Aaron
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Dec 29, 2013 10:39:40 GMT -8
"And so during the Great Gaming Compromise of 2013 it twas decided to play an agreed upon number of games that the majority would like to play with a tacit understanding that at the end of said number of agreed upon games that the aforementioned party of the first part would sit down and play a previously determined set number of games utilizing the system of choice put forth by the minority member of the aforementioned party."
(Been in an accident ? DT Pints is standing by with legal advice. I'm ready to gouge you.)
Cheers,
Curt.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 29, 2013 10:46:21 GMT -8
The relationship within a game group *is* egalitarian. Everyone is there by choice and no one is required to do what someone else says.
That said, it's in the players' interests to have a GM who is passionate about the game, because this will result in more investment in time and creativity in the game by the GM.
That's important. Really important.
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 29, 2013 11:01:21 GMT -8
Love it Curt, that is always a thought. Get everyone to agree that if X is played for a time, then Y will also be played.
Yeah Aaron, some people just do not like certain systems/games and will not play or run them. That is a big conundrum, since the group has one great GM, but that person refuses to run or play X. Is that unfair to the players? Yes, but it is also, as you and others have said, unfair to expect someone to dance when they don't feel the music.
Stu, that is exactly where I come from. And if the GM begins to house rule game X to resemble game Y, and the players are okay with those things, why not just play Y?
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 29, 2013 11:46:21 GMT -8
to make someone run a system that is not in their wheel house seems silly as well. if they are not into the system, the game will more than likely suffer. I tend to agree with this sentiment for the reasons you specify, and I would apply this equally to any player. Pastime Rule #1: Leisure Time ≠ Work. Pastime Rule #2 When Leisure Time does equal Work, refer back to Rule #1. This is not a question about what system is “better” (though I have witnessed it get confused and politically drawn into an attack by people who cannot comprehend more than their own self-centred programming – i.e. inherent munchkin behaviour). It is more a question of player empathy, thinking that all players who play, regardless their game function, are first and foremost players. For some people this means more concentration of rules than for others. But that is not the journey of the collaboration to be optimal in RPGs. There are many reasons why a player in the role of GM is not the group bitch: work; family; and health including Learning Disabilities all are be equally valid reasons of constraints to leisure time recognizable by a camaraderie of friends. Friends should not force friends to slave for their enjoyment. The GM should not hand out a 20-page (really a multi-book set) manifesto same as the other role-players not hand the GM 20 pages of fan fiction disguised as back story. I think the conceptual problem, in this example, lies in the belief there is a standardized player enjoyment here centred on crunch rather than any individual acknowledgement that players of RPGs enjoy a game unique to themselves. Your mileage may vary, depending upon the baggage you bring to the reading.
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Dec 29, 2013 12:06:56 GMT -8
If its such a drag DMing a system you dont like why not have someone else DM? Lean back and enjoy the game without worrying about it too much.
I doubt anyone force you (or CC) to DM.
Unless if the role of DM and its inherent leadership role is some short of power trip. You NEED to DM because then you call the shots.
But in that case the problem is elsewhere.
|
|
oldnemrod
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 92
Preferred Game Systems: WOD (old and new), 4E DnD, Shadowrun, 5E DND,
Currently Playing: Star Wars Saga Edition( I'M A MANDALORIAN!)
Currently Running: 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen
|
Post by oldnemrod on Dec 29, 2013 13:28:34 GMT -8
Me and a buddy of mine are the go to GMs in our circles and while he sticks to systems hes grown around, Im always looking at new mechanics and settings.
My friend loves running his games using All Flesh Must Be Eaten, unless he runs his famous games of Mage. When he tells me his next game is All Flesh, I ask myself if I can get past the system to enjoy the story. If I can't, I don't play. Simple as that. Each player has a responsibility to contribute to a good story. If you can't, be mature and back out. The dissenting player should nut up or get out.
I would want my gM running his games at his best. I don't want another player raining on it because he's not open minded enough.
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 29, 2013 15:01:03 GMT -8
If its such a drag DMing a system you dont like why not have someone else DM? Lean back and enjoy the game without worrying about it too much. I doubt anyone force you (or CC) to DM. Unless if the role of DM and its inherent leadership role is some short of power trip. You NEED to DM because then you call the shots. But in that case the problem is elsewhere. Nope. i love to GM, just dislike certain systems. As it stands, I would not play as a PC, a d20 any edition game, a I think the system is shit for my style. The issue for me, is that I am a very good GM, by player admission, not my own...I always think the last session sucked, how can it be better. So, I get asked to GM. A lot.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 29, 2013 15:37:50 GMT -8
If its such a drag DMing a system you dont like why not have someone else DM? Lean back and enjoy the game without worrying about it too much.
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Dec 30, 2013 2:27:17 GMT -8
@ Skizzle: Even if you are a good GM you can still hang the DM shield. If you dont enjoy the game (or the system) as a GM or as a player you can simply stay at home for a few sessions or invite the players for a 2nd campaign where you run your own system.
@ CC: I dont get what you mean.
To play any game you must learn the rules. They can be explained to you, you can read them yourself or you can learn them while playing but you need to do so eventually. If the issue is a LD do what other people with them do... find other ways to learn without having to read or memorise. And RPGs are Role Playing - Games - .
There is a difference between being a gm/player and learning the rules of the game (or as many rules as needed, you dont have to learn the whole book) and wanting to run a game with certain rules.
Both you and Skizzle mention you dont want to run game X (for whatever reason) so what I am saying is: DONT! Let someone else run the game. That fact though does not make you exempt from learning the rules pertinent to the game.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 30, 2013 3:53:41 GMT -8
Not grasping the basics of the rules is like taking two rugby players and putting them on a soccer team . . . When one plays union and the other league . . . You get where I'm coming from (A mess of confusion) Aaron
|
|