One of my players is bummed out about the choice of module

[Sir-Carlos]

This sounds worse than it is, xD. I have great players and our campaign is nearing an end. We all want to continue and so I went to choose a module. One of my players wanted to play Descent into Avernus and was very excited when I promised I‘ll take a look at it.
I asked the other players and they were on board too, but I always said I‘ll take a look at it first.

We all know about Avernus reputation and while I think I could make it work, I don’t know if I can bear the workload. I am still a bit new to all this DMing stuff. So I suggested Rime of the Frostmaiden. Not easy on the DM too, but I can use more of the book than with Avernus. All were on board, save the one player who wanted Avernus. They were a bit bummed out, understandably, but are on board regardless.

Now I wonder: how do I deal with that? Do I even need to do something about it? I think they’ll all be aboard, no matter what. I just never had an adventure where all players aren’t equally enthusiastic about. Should I just play Avernus, it won’t be that bad? (I really like the idea of the adventure, so that’s not the problem.) or stick with Frostmaiden? Also, the players now practically think we will play Frostmaiden no matter what. Do I compromise?

Maybe I am overthinking things, sorry.

[NontheistCleric]

Play what you, the DM, want to play. This is the most important, if not the only consideration, because the DM makes the whole game work. If one player isn't 100% on board, the game will go just fine. If the DM isn't 100% on board, the game will suffer in quality for everyone.

Also, at this point, you've already established expectations. Stick to that.

[Mastikator]

Ask if the player wants to DM Decent into Avernus.

Other than that I 100% agree with NontheistCleric.

[Unoriginal]

Play what you, the DM, want to play. This is the most important, if not the only consideration, because the DM makes the whole game work. If one player isn't 100% on board, the game will go just fine. If the DM isn't 100% on board, the game will suffer in quality for everyone.

Also, at this point, you've already established expectations. Stick to that.

Good advice.

Also, keep in mind that disappointment is natural, most people can handle it just fine.

There is nothing guaranteeing the player wouldn't have been bummed out if the group played DiA and it wasn't as they expected.

[H_H_F_F]

Everyone above me is correct, of course. Nothing to feel guilty or bad about, you made the right call.

However, assuming you'd just like to make your players happier with the campaign, you could ask the player what attracts them in the Avernus module. Is it certain themes? Certain mechanical elements? Challenge?

Find out what they like about it, and see if at some point in the future you could incorporate that into your game. If someone is just really into fiends, or planar travel, or what have you, you could try and have that in your game regardless of module - assuming you'd like to, of course.

[kazaryu]

Play what you, the DM, want to play. This is the most important, if not the only consideration, because the DM makes the whole game work. If one player isn't 100% on board, the game will go just fine. If the DM isn't 100% on board, the game will suffer in quality for everyone. i whole heartedly disagree with basically everyone on this thread. what the players want to play is as important as what the DM wants to play. its 100% not cool to just, ice one players out simply on your own whim. The players all need to be on board too, and if any aren't on board then it should be something discussed. or analyzed. is the player being overly dramatic and entitled? are they willing to compromise? is there any way too compromise? or are there expectations just so different that they'd be better off at another table? ya know. that type of thing. setting up a campaign with an established group shouldn't be just about what the DM wants. IF you're forming a group its ok for it to be about what you want. like if you're going around talking to people and inviting them to a game, then pitching what you want to do, and only that, is perfectly fine. but when the group is already established? then what everyone wants matters.

HOWEVER, that is not the situation you're in. as someone else pointed out, disappointment is normal. the player was hoping for descent and maybe over-hyped themselves. nothing wrong with that. disappointment should be temporary. if they say that they're onboard then IMO there's nothing else necessary. However, i agree with HHEFF said, you can absolutely talk to the player and see what it is about descent that they like.

[NontheistCleric]

i whole heartedly disagree with basically everyone on this thread. what the players want to play is as important as what the DM wants to play. its 100% not cool to just, ice one players out simply on your own whim. The players all need to be on board too, and if any aren't on board then it should be something discussed. or analyzed. is the player being overly dramatic and entitled? are they willing to compromise? is there any way too compromise? or are there expectations just so different that they'd be better off at another table? ya know. that type of thing. setting up a campaign with an established group shouldn't be just about what the DM wants. IF you're forming a group its ok for it to be about what you want. like if you're going around talking to people and inviting them to a game, then pitching what you want to do, and only that, is perfectly fine. but when the group is already established? then what everyone wants matters.

I never said it was just about what the DM wants, only that what the DM wants is more important than what any individual player wants, and this is true because it's easier to adapt a single character to the overall theme of a campaign and keep them satisfying to the player than it is to bend the entire campaign to one player's desire. In an RPG, everyone is going to have to compromise a little, but it's good to minimise compromise on the DM's part because they already have the job of taking care of every little minute moving part of the campaign.

[kazaryu]

I never said it was just about what the DM wants, only that what the DM wants is more important than what any individual player wants, and this is true because it's easier to adapt a single character to the overall theme of a campaign and keep them satisfying to the player than it is to bend the entire campaign to one player's desire. In an RPG, everyone is going to have to compromise a little, but it's good to minimise compromise on the DM's part because they already have the job of taking care of every little minute moving part of the campaign.

"This is the most important, if not the only consideration"

[KorvinStarmast]

i whole heartedly disagree with basically everyone on this thread. what the players want to play is as important as what the DM wants to play. its 100% not cool to just, ice one players out simply on your own whim. I think you are being overly harsh in ths case. (Bolding mine)
The problem our OP is confronting is that a decision on the module is binary: Rime or Descent? There isn't a way to compromise that choice.

Small group dynamics 101: if there are five people and four of them are interested in Rime, and one in Avernus, the group choice of Rime is more or less how small group decision making works.

disappointment is normal. Correct. We don't always get our own way.

...the player was hoping for descent and maybe over-hyped themselves. nothing wrong with that. disappointment should be temporary. if they say that they're onboard then IMO there's nothing else necessary. Yes. The key is to play the game together, as a group, and to enjoy the game together as a group. Which module it is really doesn't matter much.

[H_H_F_F]

"This is the most important, if not the only consideration"

Seems to me like Nontheistcleric clarified their position in their previous response, so we're pretty in the clear if we treat the bolded part as hyperbole.

[NontheistCleric]

Sorry. Actually, it wasn't hyperbole, just poor/unclear wording. This language runs away with me sometimes.

What I intended to convey was something like: 'This is the most important consideration, even if it's not the only consideration.'

[kazaryu]

I think you are being overly harsh in ths case. (Bolding mine)
The problem our OP is confronting is that a decision on the module is binary: Rime or Descent? There isn't a way to compromise that choice.
even if this is true, that is why i later said that this wasn't the situation OP was in. I drew a distinction between my disagreement with the general advice "only what the DM wants is what matters" and my specific advice for OP's situation.

but its also not true, as HHFF pointed out, you can somewhat compromise between the two, depending on what, specifically, someone is interested in from a certain module. if its the "travel to hell" aspect, then sure, its much harder to compromise (although you may be able to translate the adventure to a part of hell). but if its just certain feats or backgrounds or other mechanical things that were specifically introduced in descent then its totally possible to pull on those to put into rime.

Seems to me like Nontheistcleric clarified their position in their previous response, so we're pretty in the clear if we treat the bolded part as hyperbole.

they also denied that they made that claim. i was simply pointing out that they literally did make that claim. if they wanted to clarify, there's nothing wrong with that. thats why I respond to their whole post. i was specifically responding to their denial.

[Mastikator]

There's an even simpler compromise, the player who wants to play Decent into Avernus can DM it.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry. Actually, it wasn't hyperbole, just poor/unclear wording. This language runs away with me sometimes.

What I intended to convey was something like: 'This is the most important consideration, even if it's not the only consideration.'

Yeah, it's a trick of the English language that "the most X, if not the only X" means "the most X to the point it could be considered the only X" and not "the most X but not the only X"

I understood what you meant, which prompted my response, but it's true you should probably edit your first post so that the confusion gets dispelled for future readers.


There's an even simpler compromise, the player who wants to play Decent into Avernus can DM it.

Wanting to experience a module as a player and wanting to experience it as a DM are very different desires, in my experience.

Plus there could be issues like how much gaming time that group gets and how much OP wishes to DM.

Not saying that it's impossible to deal with those things, it's very possible, just saying it's not quite a simpler compromise because there's a lot of factors in play before getting to play.

[Dr.Samurai]

Maybe I am overthinking things, sorry.
You are definitely overthinking things.

You're not going to be able to satisfy everyone 100%, and you shouldn't try. You have to know what will work for you first, because you're the one that will be running the game. If you stretch yourself trying to make sure that no one is disappointed, the game might not last long, or you might not have the fun either, and that's not a good scenario.

If you feel like adding elements from Avernus into the campaign, then by all means. But don't do it to make anyone happy if you don't think you can pull it off or don't want to. You don't want to fall into the trap of being a people pleaser. It's okay for people to be disappointed; it's not a crime or anything you have to make amends for.

It sounds like your group will do just fine playing through Rime, so put your energy into running the best game for all of you that you can. In time, I'm sure the player will forget that Avernus was ever on the table. If they don't, that's a problem with them, and not anything you have to account for.

EDIT:


Not saying that it's impossible to deal with those things, it's very possible, just saying it's not quite a simpler compromise because there's a lot of factors in play before getting to play.
I agree with this. It seems to me that someone being mildly disappointed (bummed out) is the much simpler compromise than "blend the two campaigns together" and "then let the player run the module instead". That's a lot of energy to give one person what they want, instead of just letting life be life and someone being a little bummed out for a session or two.

[Sigreid]

The happiness of all I'd important. I think you're correct that making Avernus work would be a heavy load. I say this as someone who ran it and hated the module enough that I actively tried to get the party to abandon the adventure, so I'm biased against it.

I suggest talking with the player and letting them know you were looking into the module and came to the realization that you just don't think you can provide a good experience with that module at this time.

[NontheistCleric]

they also denied that they made that claim. i was simply pointing out that they literally did make that claim. if they wanted to clarify, there's nothing wrong with that. thats why I respond to their whole post. i was specifically responding to their denial.
Well, I made it by mistake, let's put it that way. I was trying to make a similar but less extreme claim, but worded it badly.


Yeah, it's a trick of the English language that "the most X, if not the only X" means "the most X to the point it could be considered the only X" and not "the most X but not the only X"

I understood what you meant, which prompted my response, but it's true you should probably edit your first post so that the confusion gets dispelled for future readers.
I don't like to edit posts that have been quoted already, because that adds to the confusion. Better to let people scroll down a bit and read the clarification.

[Mastikator]

Wanting to experience a module as a player and wanting to experience it as a DM are very different desires, in my experience.

Plus there could be issues like how much gaming time that group gets and how much OP wishes to DM.

Not saying that it's impossible to deal with those things, it's very possible, just saying it's not quite a simpler compromise because there's a lot of factors in play before getting to play.

Very true, if it's a big ask to be a DM then it's a big ask to ask someone else to DM. Golden rule and all that.

[kazaryu]

Well, I made it by mistake, let's put it that way. I was trying to make a similar but less extreme claim, but worded it badly.


it happens. i just saw advice that i disagreed with, so i responded to it. offering an alternative perspective. i mean, I even disagree that "what the DM wants to do" is most important, at least for an established group. noone in the group should feel pressured to do something they don't want to.

[Unoriginal]

I don't like to edit posts that have been quoted already, because that adds to the confusion. Better to let people scroll down a bit and read the clarification.

You can add an EDIT disclaimer at the bottom of your post.

Ex: "EDIT: I meant X and misspoke, sorry for the confusion".

Not insisting on this, though, just saying it's a possibility.

[Dr.Samurai]

it happens. i just saw advice that i disagreed with, so i responded to it. offering an alternative perspective. i mean, I even disagree that "what the DM wants to do" is most important, at least for an established group. noone in the group should feel pressured to do something they don't want to.
Unless it's a DM feeling pressured because a player is disappointed? :smallconfused:

[kazaryu]

Unless it's a DM feeling pressured because a player is disappointed? :smallconfused:

im...not sure how you get that from...anything i've said. like...at all. do you mind explaining?

[Unoriginal]

it happens. i just saw advice that i disagreed with, so i responded to it. offering an alternative perspective. i mean, I even disagree that "what the DM wants to do" is most important, at least for an established group. noone in the group should feel pressured to do something they don't want to.

No one should be pressured to do something they don't want to, but a DM has significantly more "to do" than a player.

A player who doesn't want to play X shouldn't have to play X, but the rest of the group can play X if they want. A DM who doesn't want to DM X shouldn't have to DM X, but the rest of the group can't play X unless *someone* wants to DM X.

[NontheistCleric]

it happens. i just saw advice that i disagreed with, so i responded to it. offering an alternative perspective. i mean, I even disagree that "what the DM wants to do" is most important, at least for an established group. noone in the group should feel pressured to do something they don't want to.
I think it's fair that the DM's opinion should carry a little more weight, since they are being called upon to do the figurative heavy lifting.

Besides, the player is only being 'pressured' to the extent that all group activities require some form of compromise. Sometimes you have to do something you like a little bit less (than whatever you like the most) if you want to do things with the group.


You can add an EDIT disclaimer at the bottom of your post.

Ex: "EDIT: I meant X and misspoke, sorry for the confusion".

Not insisting on this, though, just saying it's a possibility.
I'm aware of edit disclaimers–I just feel that after a quote or meaningful discussion on a point has occurred, it's better to let an original post stand as it is. I might edit a mispelling, but I don't like adding or removing anything that would change the meaning of the post.

[kazaryu]

A player who doesn't want to play X shouldn't have to play X, but the rest of the group can play X if they want. A DM who doesn't want to DM X shouldn't have to DM X, but the rest of the group can't play X unless *someone* wants to DM X.
they *can* play X without that player, but unless the player is being unreasonable, or they're being reasonable and compromise is impossible, then generally speaking the group should instead settle on an activity that everyone is comfortable with. kicking a player out of a group should never be the default solution when disagreeing on what to do. the physical practicalities don't change the social contract.


I think it's fair that the DM's opinion should carry a little more weight, since they are being called upon to do the figurative heavy lifting. and this is what i disagree with. not the heavy lifting part, obviously the DMs' job is a little more involved than the rest. but that just gives them more potential reasons to be uncomfortable, it doesn't (imo) make their discomfort or preference more important than a players. as you note later, all group activities require some form of compromise. Having an unwilling DM will straight up shut down a particular module (unless some compromise can be reached that makes the DM more comfortable). But having an unwilling player should lead to the same thing, either the group choosing something else that everyone is comfortable with, or compromising.

Now i've talked several times about if a player is being unreasonable. for example, if they're just tryna hold the group hostage by refusing to play unless its playing what they want, then that is obviously unreasonable. and they themselves are in violation of the social contract. But the same is true for DM's too. A reasonable player, or DM, isn't going to hand their entire ability to have fun on playing a specific module.

That doesn't seem to be what is happening with OP, not trying to apply it to OP. just talking about the general attitude.

[NontheistCleric]

and this is what i disagree with. not the heavy lifting part, obviously the DMs' job is a little more involved than the rest. but that just gives them more potential reasons to be uncomfortable, it doesn't (imo) make their discomfort or preference more important than a players.

Don't you think it's fair, though, that if a group asks an individual to do a difficult task for them, that that individual should be awarded some leeway to do that task the way they want, even if some members of the group do not like that way as much as some other potential way? Especially if that individual was the only one willing to do the task at all.

[kazaryu]

Don't you think it's fair, though, that if a group asks an individual to do a difficult task for them, that that individual should be awarded some leeway to do that task the way they want, even if some members of the group do not like that way as much as some other potential way? Especially if that individual was the only one willing to do the task at all.

well obviously. that falls under the "people shouldn't be pressured to do stuff they're uncomfortable with" but that goes for...all individuals. they don't have to be doing a difficult task for the group to get that level of consideration. IMO thats just treating your friends with respect.

[NontheistCleric]

well obviously. that falls under the "people shouldn't be pressured to do stuff they're uncomfortable with" but that goes for...all individuals. they don't have to be doing a difficult task for the group to get that level of consideration. IMO thats just treating your friends with respect.
Sure, but for the DM some of the consideration they are affording the others is already accounted for by 'I am running this game for you and facilitating everyone's fun, even though I don't have to'. It doesn't mean they have absolute power, but it's not unreasonable to expect other players to bow at least somewhat to their wishes, at least as far as the game goes.

This doesn't make the DM more important in the overall context of the social group, only the narrower context of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I drew a distinction between my disagreement with the general advice "only what the DM wants is what matters" and my specific advice for OP's situation. The demands on a DM and a Player are asymmetrical.

depending on what, specifically, someone is interested in from a certain module.
(a) if its the "travel to hell" aspect, then sure, its much harder to compromise (although you may be able to translate the adventure to a part of hell).

(b) but if its just certain feats or backgrounds or other mechanical things that were specifically introduced in descent then its totally possible to pull on those to put into rime.
How does the player know this? Have they already read the module?
I agree with part b _ although you are speculating here_ as something one can assess in terms of "fit" to another adventure.
For example, a friend of mine found the Marine background from Saltmarsh appealing, so we added that to a different adventure.

No one should be pressured to do something they don't want to, but a DM has significantly more "to do" than a player. That isn't the problem in the OP. And my previous post as regards small group dynamics takes care of the rest.

Besides, the player is only being 'pressured' to the extent that all group activities require some form of compromise. I hope that most of us agree on this.

kicking a player out of a group Is not in the problem statement in the OP. (And I am sorry to see the conversation headed toward this kind of talk ... and as you pointed out, disappointment can be expected but isn't a deal breaker). Your point about a player trying to hold the rest of the group hostage (yeah, we agree that's a non starter) didn't come across to me as the problem in the OP.
Being bummed that they can't play in Avernus is a disappointment; I don't see the OPs problem as involving kicking someone out of a group.

[Unoriginal]

That isn't the problem in the OP.

I know, I'm responding to kazaryu's point specifically.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wonder if we are in the process of trying to slay demons of our own making. :smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

they *can* play X without that player, but unless the player is being unreasonable, or they're being reasonable and compromise is impossible, then generally speaking the group should instead settle on an activity that everyone is comfortable with. kicking a player out of a group should never be the default solution when disagreeing on what to do.

I've never said anything about kicking a player out. The player should be the one to decide to walk away if they don't want to play.

A few years ago, I played a whole campaign in a RPG system I *really* didn't enjoy because my friends wanted to play the campaign and didn't want to play a different system. I had a bad time with all the playing parts, even if/when I did have a good time spending time with friends.

I should have walked out as soon as I realized that RPG system really, really wasn't for me.


I wonder if we are in the process of trying to slay demons of our own making. :smallconfused:

I mean yeah, but that's just life. Who else would be making demons?

[Ionathus]

Good advice.

Also, keep in mind that disappointment is natural, most people can handle it just fine.

There is nothing guaranteeing the player wouldn't have been bummed out if the group played DiA and it wasn't as they expected.

Seconded. Compromise is a fact of life for every social activity (movie night, restaurant choice, D&D module, etc.) and you'll never, ever get everyone at the table 100% invested. But three 100%s and one 90% is still great for everyone involved.

If you're anything like I am as a DM, your natural instinct and desire is to make sure that Everyone Has Fun Every Session Forever but that's simply not reality!

It sounds like this player is a little disappointed but not broken up. Embrace the fact that sometimes your interests won't be everyone's perfectly favorite cup of tea, and as long as everyone is mostly on board I am certain you'll all continue to have fun regardless. And then either you or that player can run DiA next time.

[Dr.Samurai]

im...not sure how you get that from...anything i've said. like...at all. do you mind explaining?
For me it's in the framing of this discussion.

You "vehemently disagreed with everyone" in this thread by framing the OP as alienating a player "on a whim". That didn't happen. The OP asked the players what they were interested in, considered it, and made a decision. That's the opposite of what you described.

Then you continue to talk about the player being "pressured" to do something they don't want to do. Nothing in the OP or anywhere else in this thread suggests that that is the case. Note, preferring to play Avernus is not the same as not wanting to play Rime.

You go on to admit that none of this is relevant to the OP, but you went ahead and led with that anyways.

And you keep insisting that no one should be pressured to do anything they don't want to, but the suggestions given have been that the DM fuse two adventure modules into one, or allow the player to read through the other adventure module and cherry-pick features and mechanics they want to use or play with.

These both seem unreasonable requests for someone that's just a little disappointed, but that disappointment keeps getting conflated with "being pressured to do something they don't want to do", which adds leverage to do the idea that the DM should do something to make the situation better.

All in all, this serves to give me the impression of an opinion that privileges the player over the DM, despite the assertion that no one should be put out.

[Unoriginal]

Worth noting that since the DM needs to put a lot more work and investment into running a module than a player needs to put into play the module, treating the two as the same amout of work/investment automatically leads to unbalance.

By this I mean, let's say Player A wants to play Descent into Avernus just like Players B, C and D. However, Player A states they will only play in a campaign where they're allowed to play Chronurgist Wizard.

Meanwhile, DM E wants to DM Descent into Avernus. However, they state they will not allow anyone to play a Chronurgist Wizard at their table.

Players B, C and D want to play with both A and E.

If B, C and D ask E to allow the Chronurgist Wizard, they're asking E for something *on top* of all the work/investment they are and will be putting in the campaign.

If B, C and D ask A to play without playing a Chronurgist Wizard, they're asking A for something *on top* of all the work/investment they are and will be putting in the campaign... which is significantly less than E's work/investment.

I think it's reasonable to ask both if they'd reconsider their respective stances, but that it would be extremely unreasonable to act as if both asks are equivalent.

[kazaryu]

The demands on a DM and a Player are asymmetrical. so? doesn't mean their preferences should matter more. all it means is there are more things for a DM to have a preference on. but if the DM expresses a preference, then it should be treated exactly the same as if any player expresses a preference...which is to say, respected, and adjusted for within reason. Now its possible that this is noncontroversial, and we're both saying the same thing in different ways...but i don't think thats the case. at least...not for everyone in this thread.



How does the player know this? Have they already read the module? why would this matter? and what is this in reference to? the going to hell part?

I agree with part b _ although you are speculating here_ as something one can assess in terms of "fit" to another adventure.
For example, a friend of mine found the Marine background from Saltmarsh appealing, so we added that to a different adventure. im not speculating..im giving examples. what speculation?


Is not in the problem statement in the OP. (And I am sorry to see the conversation headed toward this kind of talk ... and as you pointed out, disappointment can be expected but isn't a deal breaker). Your point about a player trying to hold the rest of the group hostage (yeah, we agree that's a non starter) didn't come across to me as the problem in the OP.
Being bummed that they can't play in Avernus is a disappointment; I don't see the OPs problem as involving kicking someone out of a group. it didn't. my original post had 2 separate ideas. the first, and the one that is continuing to be debated, was that the DM's preferences shouldn't be treated as any more important than any member of a group, for an established group. its not even remotely just about what the DM wants. and its that discussion that led to talking about kicking a player out of the group.

the second idea was mostly just agreeing with the general idea that OP doesn't need to do anything, and that at most they might talk to the player about why they wanted to play Descent to see if some of those things can be ported into rime.

at no point, at least from my perspective, was there any discussion or suggestion that the OP should kick the player out of the group. the thing that i said that is being debated was specifically in response to the general advice that was initially dropped (that dm's preference is what matters, players need to just kowtow) and then agreed to by every response up to that point in the thread.


Sure, but for the DM some of the consideration they are affording the others is already accounted for by 'I am running this game for you and facilitating everyone's fun, even though I don't have to'. It doesn't mean they have absolute power, but it's not unreasonable to expect other players to bow at least somewhat to their wishes, at least as far as the game goes.
and i disagree. i think as a whole the group should, to an extent, bow to the wishes of...all of their individuals. the DM's preferences aren't any different.


I've never said anything about kicking a player out. The player should be the one to decide to walk away if they don't want to play.
*snip*

I should have walked out as soon as I realized that RPG system really, really wasn't for me.
well it depends. i've made a distinction throughout this thread between already established groups and pick-up groups. the point of establishing such a group is for everyones enjoyment...so the activities should, within reason, be geared such that everyone can enjoy. by ignoring a group members preferences, it doesn't matter if they choose to leave, or you tell them to. the group has already isolated that member. Im not trying to apply this to your group specifically, obviously i don't know everything about how that all played out. but in general, if a group is formed to have fun...and then don't take into account individual group member's preferences for fun, then the group has failed that member.



For me it's in the framing of this discussion.

You "vehemently disagreed with everyone" in this thread by framing the OP as alienating a player "on a whim". That didn't happen. The OP asked the players what they were interested in, considered it, and made a decision. That's the opposite of what you described.
.
except...i didn't. my first post was in response to general advice, and i framed that advice as potentially leading to alienating a member of the group.

i then very specifically addressed the OP as being separate from that scenario...phrasing it in a way that i thought would make it obvious that i wasn't saying exactly what you're accusing me of saying.

[NontheistCleric]

and i disagree. i think as a whole the group should, to an extent, bow to the wishes of...all of their individuals. the DM's preferences aren't any different.

Aren't they, though? If they're not, then you're essentially saying that the DM is saddled with all the work and responsibility of running a campaign, yet has no particular discretion to decide what the campaign will actually be about.

Doesn't seem very fair.

[kazaryu]

Aren't they, though? If they're not, then you're essentially saying that the DM is saddled with all the work and responsibility of running a campaign, yet has no particular discretion to decide what the campaign will actually be about.

Doesn't seem very fair.
only if every member of the group expresses strong preferences for what the campaign should be about which...i find unlikely. but yes, you're right, i think in most groups the DM is going to have most of the control over what happens in the campaign. thats his role. but they should also consider their players when designing things. and if something they're doing is actively harming a players fun...then they absolutely should compromise with that player, even if the others are fine with it. Now if a player is like "yo, i want the campaign to include THIS and THAT and also THIS THING and...i won't have fun if this isn't the case" then we're talking about them being unreasonable. similar to if a player were to say "we must play storm king's thunder, or i won't have fun". unreasonable.

OTOH, I find its perfectly reasonable for a group to collaborate on the general campaign themes and like...what its about. for a module, this would be the group discussing what module to play. for a custom campaign this would be the group discussing what kind of campaign they want to play. and thats totally a thing especially for already established groups. another form it can take is the DM presenting 2-3 possible custom campaigns that they've been working on/considering and letting the group decide which.

in all cases the individual preferences of the group are being taken into consideration. the DM is free to say "im not comfortable running this, or that aspect" just as any player is free to say they aren't comfortable playing it. and in both cases the group should adjust to ensure that all players are comfortable with it.

[NontheistCleric]

in all cases the individual preferences of the group are being taken into consideration. the DM is free to say "im not comfortable running this, or that aspect" just as any player is free to say they aren't comfortable playing it. and in both cases the group should adjust to ensure that all players are comfortable with it.

Sure, but you're unlikely to get to a point where everyone is 100% comfortable with any given premise, because that tends to happen in social situations where people are different, and my point is that if you have to choose between a DM being fully comfortable and a player being fully comfortable, you should always choose the DM because the DM contributes more to the game as a whole.

Which is essentially the situation in the OP.

[kazaryu]

Sure, but you're unlikely to get to a point where everyone is 100% comfortable with any given premise, because that tends to happen in social situations where people are different, and my point is that if you have to choose between a DM being fully comfortable and a player being fully comfortable, you should always choose the DM because the DM contributes more to the game as a whole.
.

im assuming that when you say "comfortable" you're referring to like...preference. in which case I don't think so. mostly because i don't think thats a choice that you're ever making. the goal should be to maximize the overall fun the table is having, while ensuring that all participants are having fun. you are correct that generally thats going to require some amount of compromise. but ideally its every one compromising to everyone. if anyone isn't having the fun, then the game should be adjusted to compensate. if possible.

[NontheistCleric]

I was assuming that was what you were meaning by 'comfortable', because it would be crazy to suggest that, say, someone should play Rime of the Frostmaiden despite it triggering their traumatic memories of getting locked in a freezer or something...

...but in real groups, there is no perfectly even dynamic. Someone is always going to end up compromising a little more than everyone else. Since the DM already has the difficult job of running the game for everyone, the least everyone else can do is compromise a little in favor of the DM if necessary.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean yeah, but that's just life. Who else would be making demons? The Abyss. This is D&D, right? :smallwink:


For me it's in the framing of this discussion.

You "vehemently disagreed with everyone" in this thread by framing the OP as alienating a player "on a whim". That didn't happen. The OP asked the players what they were interested in, considered it, and made a decision. That's the opposite of what you described.
Correct.

@kazaryu: you went there. That's why you are getting push back. It was an accusation that didn't fit the conversation.
(Over the course of the convo, I think you are I are mostly in agreement, on the basics)

[kazaryu]

Correct. incorrect, almost none of what i've typed was about the DM's specific situation. and thats something that I made pretty clear, or tried to, in my first post. and having gone back and re-read it...im really not sure how much more i could have done to make that more clear.


@kazaryu: you went there. That's why you are getting push back. It was an accusation that didn't fit the conversation.
i don't have a problem with people earnestly disagreeing. in fact i think most people that i've been disagreeing with have understood that im not talking about the OP's situation, because we're all pretty much in agreement on that. Dr. samurai is claiming that I said or implied things that I didn't. plain and simple. And its my feeling that had they read the post that framed the discussion (as they imply that they did since apparently their problem is with my framing), they would have realized that that was not the framing.


I was assuming that was what you were meaning by 'comfortable', because it would be crazy to suggest that, say, someone should play Rime of the Frostmaiden despite it triggering their traumatic memories of getting locked in a freezer or something... yeh, just wanted to be clear.



...but in real groups, there is no perfectly even dynamic. Someone is always going to end up compromising a little more than everyone else. Since the DM already has the difficult job of running the game for everyone, the least everyone else can do is compromise a little in favor of the DM if necessary. i mean sure, but ideals aren't, imo, about the result. obviously the result is going to depend on a variety of practical factors that you can't actually measure much less compensate perfectly for. but its about the goal and attitude. but I disagree with the notion that any focus should be put on ensuring the DM's preferences come out on top. I think that, in practice, the DM's preferences will tend toward the top. but thats just because most of the time people expressed preferences, especially the things that specifically drain from the experience, aren't going to constrain the campaign all that tightly. and anything that doesn't fall under those preferences are entirely up the the DM. So they're free to add whatever elements they like, essentially so long as they don't harm the fun of their players. but the players aren't being expected to compromise for that...its just the nature of the beast.

[NontheistCleric]

Well, there is one kind of ideal, in the sense of 'it would be ideal if everyone agreed completely on what was the most fun', but there's also an ideal concerning 'what is the best thing to do when not everyone agrees on what is the most fun', and I think the answer to that is to defer to the DM, unless the majority is really, seriously against them.

It doesn't just have to be about what module you play or overall themes of the campaign. It can be as simple as not pushing it even though you feel the DM adjudicated a rule incorrectly, or made an encounter or two too difficult or too easy... really anything there might be a difference of opinion about concerning the game.

[da newt]

For Carlos - If I was to give any advice it would be to have a chat w/ player #1 and simply explain that you reviewed Descent but found it to be lacking and difficult for a DM. Let them know you'd like to run campaigns your Players are interested in, but this one is more trouble than you are willing to take on at this time.

99% of folks will be happy to hear that you tried and care about their input and fully support your decision to go another direction. Maybe you can revisit this later or maybe the Player would like to DM that campaign ...

Have a chat. Don't over stress about this.

[kazaryu]

Well, there is one kind of ideal, in the sense of 'it would be ideal if everyone agreed completely on what was the most fun', but there's also an ideal concerning 'what is the best thing to do when not everyone agrees on what is the most fun', and I think the answer to that is to defer to the DM, unless the majority is really, seriously against them. when it comes to making a ruling...yeah, its the DM's job. but thats not "deferring to DM preference"...its the DM doing their job. And really, even then they're still beholden to the players. if they make a ruling that ruins the fun for certain players, then they're just as obligated to compromise on that ruling, so long as the players are being reasonable. Thats the thing that i always felt weird about, yeah the DM is, to an extent, the authority. but they're not an autocrat, they should still oblige their players to a degree to ensure everyone is having fun.

there's no scenario you can think of where that isn't true. even when a player is being unreasonable, its not, or shouldn't be, the DM's decision to kick them. its the groups.

[NontheistCleric]

Thats the thing that i always felt weird about, yeah the DM is, to an extent, the authority. but they're not an autocrat, they should still oblige their players to a degree to ensure everyone is having fun.
I think a better way to characterize it is that within the game, the DM is an autocrat–this is kind of what makes the game work and run smoothly–but they only have that power to the point that the other players don't feel the need to take it away from them.


there's no scenario you can think of where that isn't true. even when a player is being unreasonable, its not, or shouldn't be, the DM's decision to kick them. its the groups.
Not the social group, maybe, but I think it's reasonable for a DM to decide that they don't want a particular player in a particular game of theirs (they might still play together in different games), whether that's because they showed a pattern of acting unreasonably or the player just wasn't the right fit for the game.

[kazaryu]

I think a better way to characterize it is that within the game, the DM is an autocrat–this is kind of what makes the game work and run smoothly–but they only have that power to the point that the other players don't feel the need to take it away from them. sure but that still leads to the same place. that the DM's preference isn't more important.



Not the social group, maybe, but I think it's reasonable for a DM to decide that they don't want a particular player in a particular game of theirs (they might still play together in different games), whether that's because they showed a pattern of acting unreasonably or the player just wasn't the right fit for the game.

absolutely, a DM is well within their rights to not run a game if they don't believe they'll have fun with a particular player present.

[NontheistCleric]

sure but that still leads to the same place. that the DM's preference isn't more important.

Well, not really. The DM is still more important, but they're not necessarily more important, only contingently. For example, let's say there is an imaginary country where people vote on who they want to be the King every year, but they can also vote him out early if they they think he's doing a really bad job. The King is more important–he does more work and that work has deep repercussions for the country, and he gets to decide things that the other people don't decide–to a point, he can decide what is true and not true about his country in a way that others cannot, and the people listen to him because he keeps it all going.

The DM is like that King. They are more important as long as everyone agrees they are still the right person to run things–and in this case, that means enough people showing their approval by continuing to show up to their games.

[Dr.Samurai]

except...i didn't. my first post was in response to general advice, and i framed that advice as potentially leading to alienating a member of the group.

i then very specifically addressed the OP as being separate from that scenario...phrasing it in a way that i thought would make it obvious that i wasn't saying exactly what you're accusing me of saying.

incorrect, almost none of what i've typed was about the DM's specific situation. and thats something that I made pretty clear, or tried to, in my first post. and having gone back and re-read it...im really not sure how much more i could have done to make that more clear.

i don't have a problem with people earnestly disagreeing. in fact i think most people that i've been disagreeing with have understood that im not talking about the OP's situation, because we're all pretty much in agreement on that. Dr. samurai is claiming that I said or implied things that I didn't. plain and simple. And its my feeling that had they read the post that framed the discussion (as they imply that they did since apparently their problem is with my framing), they would have realized that that was not the framing.
I did read what you said, that's why I referred back to it. It would be difficult to refer to something I didn't know about.

I said, in my post that you quoted, that you admit those points were irrelevant to the OP. I still believe you are framing this in a way that privileges the players over the DM.

The points being made about the importance of the DM considering their own desires ALL matter to the OP. Your points DO NOT MATTER to the OP. The OP is fretting over a situation and considering taking action that may add to his workload, or involve running a module he already decided he would rather not run. Telling the OP that it is important to keep his considerations in mind is exactly what the OP needs to hear so he doesn't potentially tank his game before it even begins. The OP IS ALREADY considering the player's feelings. To the point that, despite the player being hunky-dory playing in a Rime game, the OP is still here wondering if he should do something different because he has disappointed the player.

Coming in here and talking about players being pressured and DMs alienating them on a whim is not helpful, and not relevant, to the OP or the comments that followed the OP.

Further, I just disagree with your general remarks that everyone at the table is equal. To piggyback off of Unoriginal's post earlier about players A, B, and C... let's say a DM asks the players to choose between three different modules, and rank them in preference. The modules are Avernus, Rime, and Thunder. The players vote as follows:

Player A = Avernus, Rime, Thunder
Player B = Avernus, Rime, Thunder
Player C = Rime, Avernus, Thunder
Player D = Thunder, Rime, Avernus
Player E = Avernus, Rime, Thunder

The DM considers these results, and would also like to run Avernus, and so he tells the group he is going to run Avernus. Players A, B, and E are happy. Players C and D are disappointed. But everyone is equal in all ways at this table, so apparently something has to be done. Player C tells the DM that he really wanted to play in a cold weather game and use the cold weather mechanics. He asks the DM if he can change the setting of Avernus to Cania, so that they can still go to Baator, but now they can use the cold weather mechanics outlined in Rime. The DM explains that Cania isn't outlined in Descent into Avernus, but Player C explains that the DM can use mechanics from Rime of the Frostmaiden, together with mechanics from Avernus, to create something resembling what Cania might be. Since everyone is equal and must compromise with each other, and Player C is not getting his first vote, the DM agrees. Player D is also disappointed that they won't play Storm King's Thunder. He tells the DM that he really wanted to face off against giants, and instead they'll mostly be fighting devils. He asks the DM if he can integrate a giant plot somewhere in the Avernus game so they can fight against a bunch of giants. The DM explains that there are already a lot of moving players in Avernus, including dragons and yugoloths and even amongst the warlords of Hell. Player D tells the DM he can simply replace one of those factions with giants instead, and adjust the encounters so that they are appropriate to the party's level. He also would like for the DM to use the variant giant abilities in Storm King's Thunder, and also the new giants in Bigby's, because the MM giants are sort of boring and he was looking forward to new cool giants. Since Player D is an equal to the DM at the table, and didn't get his first vote, the DM agrees to this as well.

Player E speaks up and says that his real preference was for Wilds Beyond the Witchlight, but that wasn't an option to choose from. Since the DM is compromising with the other players, he asks the DM if he can incorporate some of the Feywild into the game, including the Domains of Delight which are really interesting. Also, Witchlight does this cool thing where all of the encounters can be defeated without combat, and it would be great if the DM could make the same thing possible for the Avernus game. The DM agrees.

Everyone is satisfied because the democratic process took place and all of the equals at the table were able to get what they wanted. Players A, B, C, D, and E lean back in their lounge chairs, soaking up the sun rays, sipping on martinis. The DM goes to his Amazon account and purchases all of the other modules, and starts googling for advice on how to create a Frankenstein module that he agreed to run because everyone at the table is equal and therefore everyone's preferences matter equally and must be satisfied.

It's just absolutely absurd, but this is what is being suggested every time this comes up. No one can ever mention that a player is disappointed without someone demanding that "everyone is equal" and the DM has to do more to make sure no one is being "pressured" into something they don't want to do. And this is achieved by diminishing the work the DM has to do (and their expenses) and inflating the importance of players getting exactly what they want.

When my brother said he would run Avernus for us, I wasn't thrilled. I like playing good characters and I wasn't excited about being tested at every corner and the game trying to corrupt me every step of the way. Did I mention this? Did I try to sway him otherwise? Did I get the group together to ambush him at session zero that I would actually be DMing a different game instead of him? No. I played the game. And it was a blast. Not a big deal.

[kazaryu]

I did read what you said, that's why I referred back to it. It would be difficult to refer to something I didn't know about. it would be...and yet thats the only way that i can think for you to have earnestly mis characterized my post. because...if you did actually read my post, then i don't know how you can, in good faith, try to claim that i was...how did you phrase it... "framing the OP as alienating a player" when i explicitly said that they weren't? are you deliberately misrepresenting my position? do you have something personal against me such that you're prone to taking the worst possible interpretation of what i wrote? or did you just...not fully read my original post, and therefore assumed that all of my follow up posts were directed at the OP.


I said, in my post that you quoted, that you admit those points were irrelevant to the OP. I still believe you are framing this in a way that privileges the players over the DM. oh...so you deliberately misrepresented what i said. I'll be honest, i didn't read past you clearly misrepresenting me. i just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you hadn't actually read what i'd written. those points weren't relevant to the op...because they weren't addressing the OP. crazy how that works.




Coming in here and talking about players being pressured and DMs alienating them on a whim is not helpful, and not relevant, to the OP oh wow, didn't know you were the OP and therefore able to decide whats helpful to them. how neat, why have 2 separate accounts?
or the comments that followed the OP. in point of fact my comments were extremely relevant to the the comments that followed OP, specifically the ones that were more general advice for DMing, and not just the stuff that was specifically related to the OP. so either none of the general advice was relevant (in which case why single me out?) or all of it was, in which case...why single me out?



Further, I just disagree with your general remarks that everyone at the table is equal. To piggyback off of Unoriginal's post earlier about players A, B, and C... let's say a DM asks the players to choose between three different modules, and rank them in preference. The modules are Avernus, Rime, and Thunder. The players vote as follows:

Player A = Avernus, Rime, Thunder
Player B = Avernus, Rime, Thunder
Player C = Rime, Avernus, Thunder
Player D = Thunder, Rime, Avernus
Player E = Avernus, Rime, Thunder

The DM considers these results, and would also like to run Avernus, and so he tells the group he is going to run Avernus. Players A, B, and E are happy. Players C and D are disappointed. But everyone is equal in all ways at this table, so apparently something has to be done. wow, 3 posts later and you actually attempted to address what i seemed to have said. i mean, you still misrepresented my position, but at least in this case the misunderstanding could easily have come from an earnest place.

at no point did i say that "something must be done just because a player feels disappointed in fact, in my original post, (that you definitely read, right?) i specifically said that it was ok for the player to feel disappointed, they may have overhyped themselves, so long as they're on board...which they are. further, as i've continued this discussion i've made it abundantly clear that the focus is to ensure all players are having fun, not that they couldn't have had more fun.

so to apply my reasoning to your situation, it all depends. why are the players disappointed. will they be able to have fun playing any of the options and their really just voting on which they think they'd have the most fun with? then disappointment isn't a problem...because the players can all have fun playing all of them. in order for this situation to be relevant it would have to be something like. player D has already played descent several times, and is therefore worried that his knowledge of the campaign will make it difficult for him to really enjoy the campaign, because he already knows everything. thats a perfectly reasonable objection. so what...should the group just play it anyway and let him not have fun? thats my point. its not "oh man, i would have preferred X but Y is ok too" and now the table should feel obligated to accommodate them. its "hey for X reason i don't think i can have fun doing that campaign."

going back to that example There are plenty of solutions, for example the DM could promise to change enough about the module that he shouldn't need to worry about his meta knowledge harming his fun. or the group could decide to play rime. which none of the players have played before, and all of them voted at least 2nd. so they can all have fun. However, IMO "well im the DM and i really want to run this, so you'll just have to leave the group or tough it out" is not an acceptable solution.

edit: oh WOW, now i have gone back and read your other post and...man as bad as it started, it scarcely improved


Nothing to feel guilty or bad about, you made the right call.

However, assuming you'd just like to make your players happier with the campaign, you could ask the player what attracts them in the Avernus module. .




*snip* if they say that they're onboard then IMO there's nothing else necessary. However, i agree with HHEFF said, you can absolutely talk to the player and see what it is about descent that they like.
THESE are what you're talking about when you say


And you keep insisting that no one should be pressured to do anything they don't want to, but the suggestions given have been that the DM fuse two adventure modules into one, or allow the player to read through the other adventure module and cherry-pick features and mechanics they want to use or play with.

seriously? HHFF basically said "you're fine, don't need to do anything. but if you want you can do this" and i agreed...but those are somehow the focus of what I suggested. not everything before that where both he and i said, in no uncertain terms, that OP was perfectly fine?

then you follow it up with
"These both seem unreasonable requests for someone that's just a little disappointed,"

even after admitting that i wasn't talking about the OP?


but that disappointment keeps getting conflated with "being pressured to do something they don't want to do" the only one conflating those 2 things is you. I specifically didn't use disapoint in any of its forms outside of my original post...where i said it was ok that he was disappointed, that should pass. the word i used was "uncomfortable" for most of my posts...because it means something different to disappointed. This is purely you reading meaning into it that isn't there.


Like...man, i always try to give benefit of the doubt. and i try to be open when i do get overzealous but...this level of misrepresentation feels personal.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nothing personal kazaryu. I think I’m understanding your points just fine, but happy to leave your response as the final word.

[Boci]

Not the social group, maybe, but I think it's reasonable for a DM to decide that they don't want a particular player in a particular game of theirs (they might still play together in different games), whether that's because they showed a pattern of acting unreasonably or the player just wasn't the right fit for the game.

Its absolutly reasonable for the DM to decide they don't like playing with a specific player, but a DM cannot just decide to remove one player from the group, because the group gets a say as well. If they don't agree with the DM, then the likely outcome isn't one player removed from the group, its the group dissolving.

The reverse is also true. The players cannot decide to kick a single player out they are sick of if the DM isn't on board.

[NontheistCleric]

Well, that's true (although I don't think it really has to involve the group–the DM can just talk to the player individually), but it still comes to the same thing: That the DM being okay with any given player's presence is the most crucial thing.

Also, leaving one game doesn't necessarily entail leaving the group as a whole.

[KorvinStarmast]

For Carlos - If I was to give any advice it would be to have a chat w/ player #1 and simply explain that you reviewed Descent but found it to be lacking and difficult for a DM. Let them know you'd like to run campaigns your Players are interested in, but this one is more trouble than you are willing to take on at this time.

99% of folks will be happy to hear that you tried and care about their input and fully support your decision to go another direction. Maybe you can revisit this later or maybe the Player would like to DM that campaign ...

Have a chat. Don't over stress about this. Good advice.

[Boci]

Well, that's true (although I don't think it really has to involve the group–the DM can just talk to the player individually), but it still comes to the same thing: That the DM being okay with any given player's presence is the most crucial thing.

In general maybe, but its not hard to imagine that not being the case, especially if the group existed before gaming, in which case there will be pre-existing social dynamics that the DM role won't necessarily supersede.

Hell back in my university days we kicked one GM out of our dorm and then replaced him. In that particular case, the GM's feelings didn't matter one bit.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Play what you, the DM, want to play. This is the most important, if not the only consideration, because the DM makes the whole game work. If one player isn't 100% on board, the game will go just fine. If the DM isn't 100% on board, the game will suffer in quality for everyone.

Also, at this point, you've already established expectations. Stick to that.

This first response is a great one. DiA is a pile of work to make great. I think I did that and loved it, as did my players. But it's probably the worst mod if the DM isn't passionate about it because the middle part of this mod just doesn't work without a lot of time on the part of the DM.

If the DM isn't loving a mod the players won't either.

[Easy e]

In a group of 1+, someone will not always get what they want.

That is part of the social contract.