At the moment I'm running Shadowrun 20A/4.5E, for my players. I set up some specific rules, which had one player ready to quit, and you know, I'd have been okay with that. I'm getting to the point, where if I present a game and someone isn't interested of 5-6 players, I'm not going to change my campaign to suit just one player. Now generally, I talk to the players and get what they want before hand. But sometimes I just want to do one thing, and go with that for a good reason. I've got solid ideas for adventures for that idea for a while. Rather than just a general desire to run a game system. (I offered up Anarchy, sans the GM/passing the hat stuff, because with a GM it can be a lot simpler.)

What do you do? Do you cater to your players, or not? Do you cater to a single player when the rest are alright with a given campaign?

If I can make some minor alterations to the campaign to suit the lone holdout without screwing it up for the rest of the group (including, and most importantly, me), I'll probably wind up doing that.  

If it's a matter of "Hey I'm running Shadowrun" and six players are into it and the seventh says "No, I want to play Tails of Equestria" then we're playing Shadowrun unless I get a wild hair to do My Little Shadowrun, which actually might be kinda bitchin' now that I think about it.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1066855If it's a matter of "Hey I'm running Shadowrun" and six players are into it and the seventh says "No, I want to play Tails of Equestria" then we're playing Shadowrun unless I get a wild hair to do My Little Shadowrun, which actually might be kinda bitchin' now that I think about it.

I actually got suckered into helping develop a game pretty much that. Then the publisher tried to get out of paying me the agreed on fee, which was pretty small, claiming first "Well I should only pay you by word." and then "Well you know rules arent copyrightable so I don't have to pay you at all." Artist quit, game never saw print.

As for the OPs problem.

Depends on what the player objected to? Without context it is hard to say?

Did they just not like Shadowrun? Did they just not like 4e SR? Did they just not like some element like magic? Did they just not like the premise of the adventure idea? etc.

Burying the lede?

This isn't really about Shadowrun at all, its a question about handling players who would quit after the GM lays down the law about what sort of campaign he plans to run...

If I read it right, the player didn't have a problem with Shadowrun, he had a problem with a specific and unspecified restriction... presumably something like 'no trolls' or 'everyone has to play a rigger' or something like that... and threatened to walk.  Silverlion seems to be deliberately vague, like his players are all celebrities and we're gossiping about their behind the scenes drug use... I'm guessing the intractable player was... Tom Cruise! He seems like the sort of guy who won't play if he can't be a lesbian stripper ninja...

I didn't open this thread at first, because the title led me to believe that it was system and edition specific.

Turns out this thread is widely applicable.

I don't believe a DM should allow the players to dictate what the DM must and must not allow in the game they are running.  Let any strongly opinionated players DM their own games, and then they can do it their way.  The DM invests a lot of time and effort, and quite often makes the greatest financial investment as well.

Quote from: Silverlion;1066852What do you do? Do you cater to your players, or not? Do you cater to a single player when the rest are alright with a given campaign?

Depends on what the social contract agreed to mentions. A always vet my players before beginning any game with them.

I've had 5e players quit when I tell them that characters must use the standard array and that neither roll nor point-buy are options. I've had a few more quit when I told them I wasn't allowing the Variant Human. I was considering a 5e game with no feats and I asked several players about it; everyone agreed that only spellcasters would be attractive in such a game.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a huge fan of the Standard Array, but I can't imagine walking from a game over it.

Quote from: Spike;1066914Don't get me wrong, I've never been a huge fan of the Standard Array, but I can't imagine walking from a game over it.

I was actually using an array based closer around the usual distributions of 4k3, so it would have been 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 before modifiers. It didn't enhance power in the high areas but it (slightly) shored up weaknesses. The players (two of them) in question wanted to min-max out 30-pt arrays from it instead.

I just don't like arrays, period. I don't like the 'arrays' for skills in Corporation.

Its got nothing to do with the level of power, and hell, I got shit luck with dice anyways, but the fact that after a few iterations every character starts to look the same, only instead of asking "What class are you" people ask 'Where'd you put your high stat' or somach.

Quote from: Spike;1066918"What class are you" people ask 'Where'd you put your high stat' or somach.

In 5e, the two questions overlap considerably.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1066908I've had 5e players quit when I tell them that characters must use the standard array and that neither roll nor point-buy are options. I've had a few more quit when I told them I wasn't allowing the Variant Human. I was considering a 5e game with no feats and I asked several players about it; everyone agreed that only spellcasters would be attractive in such a game.

Wait? So none of these twits will play AL either? Because Array and no variant human are part of the AL restrictions. And alignment limits. And the two book limit. And probably a few I've forgotten.

Quote from: Spike;1066918I just don't like arrays, period. I don't like the 'arrays' for skills in Corporation.

Its got nothing to do with the level of power, and hell, I got shit luck with dice anyways, but the fact that after a few iterations every character starts to look the same, only instead of asking "What class are you" people ask 'Where'd you put your high stat' or somach.

I feel the same. But as a DM I realized that Array was the least trouble to deal with since at a glance I can tell if someone has everything in order and yeah you lose some variety. But it forces every player to accept a weakness somewhere in their stats and it forces them to think and consider when they get a stat up. Do they improve a stat or do they grab a feat? Is potentially being weaker in the long run worth the perks a feat give? And this way no one can complain about anyone elses stats. If they do after this then take a hike if you are so fragile you cant stand someone else using the exact same array being better than you because they choose differently.

When we were playtesting 5e way back we all tried different approaches. One player even just took her rolls in order and decided the character based on that.

Quote from: Silverlion;1066852What do you do? Do you cater to your players, or not? Do you cater to a single player when the rest are alright with a given campaign?

In my circles the GM is like a basketball Point Guard: he is the facilitator and organizer, and that's it. Ultimately it's the group that decides on things, specially as we rotate GM so much, even inside the same campaign. So for a player to be ejected he/she would have to go against the group's decision, not solely the GM's.

Anyway, in your specific case, I think if everyone is comfortable with your house rules except that single player, then telling him "Hey bro, it's okay if you pass this campaign up. We can hook up to you the next one" is cool imo.