Htydjtk

I'm a very new but very eager DM. Me and my friends have long been wanting to play and as always we had no DM so I took up the reins.

My players are very extremely creative and I want them to be able to do whatever they want - however - I at the same time feel like they completely do not care for the story, world, or characters that I'm trying to show them.

We've only had two sessions, but after each session, players would talk about how excited they are to create their own campaign and what they'd do in their story and universe - which is great! I would love to be a player in their campaign!, however it hurts my feelings because I feel like they're highly uninterested in what I have done, the work and thought put into the story I'm trying to make, rather wanting it to be done and over with.

The campaign is following Matt Mercer's Taldorei setting and using gestalt characters.

Another one of the players keeps insisting on a set background and key development points they want to have for their character - they're adamant about their character getting cool weapons and like 'a magical sniper's eye so they can see farther and shoot better' - and while again I'm so happy for them to be thinking about the game and development, I feel like their insisting on what should happen and becomes upset when I'm like 'maybe' and want to either do a different item or work it in differently in the game, or even not telling them for spoiler reasons, to put it simply. The 'Hero' player wants to become a Lich - again, I like the creativity and anything can happen-but I feel like they're a glory hound and stealing the spotlight from other players.

This particular player has imagined a very skilled and in depth background - which is cool - but at the same time it doesn't seem to allow for much development in the game, their suppose to be starting at level one but this character has been on adventures, and has companions, and x and blah. Really my issue with them is, the player seems to be thinking they're the 'main hero' of not only the story but the group. Whenever I veto something of theirs, they become childish and 'okay' and pouts while being like 'I'm not having fun playing this game' - but then I'm also like it's not just you playing the game.

I don't want to stifle their creativity but I feel that their not trusting me with letting me run the campaign and create adventures and cool discoveries for them rather that they're telling me 'hey you should do this bc I thought it and it's cool and better than anything you could do'

I don't think any of them is doing this maliciously or to try and overrule me as a DM - but it still hurts and feels bad when I've worked very very hard in trying to be a good DM. I don't want to be too rude to them, so what I'm really asking is, should I just not be so upset about it or is this really an issue about the players?

We've talked about using a rotating GM, problem: everyone has their own world setting, no one is familiar with the other's. We've also talked about me and 'hero' player being co-dm, w/ them setting the story and me being the technical side. Feel they would be railroading and wouldn't know how to be a dm, he hasn't read any of the books.

For the time being I've stopped being a DM for the group because I truly don't want my sour mood to ruin their game or experience of it, I'm genuinely uncertain if this is something I just have to suck up or something I need to have a conversation with them about, or how to go about that conversation.

"The campaign is following Matt Mercer's Taldorei setting and using gestalt characters."

If you aren't an experienced DM, dont try to be Matt Mercer

Grow into your boots as a DM.

We have some other answers about this, but the advice remains the same. Since you are a new DM, play it straight for a few sessions until more of the people at your table have a good feel for the game. Then, with that foundation built, go wild and try Matt Mercer's house rules since now you know what they are a variation on.

Also note that Critical Role is a show made for a particular reason, and is peopled by professional actors. His house rules come from his experience of the RPG game form.

As to "am I acting reasonably" ...

You are going through a normal small group dynamic

You are in the forming and storming stage of the four step "Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing" group behavior that is common to small groups doing anything.(RPG playing being one of them).

Don't give up, work with the other players to come up with the set up that gives you all the most fun. It doesn't matter if you are the DM, or if you rotate as DM.

After each sesssion, talk to each other.

It is healthy at a table when the DM listens to the feedback of the players, and when the players give constructive feedback to the DM. In general this is coverd by addressing:

What went well?

What didn't go well?

What did I like?

What didn't I like?

With that in mind, discuss all of that and then agree on what will we do differently in the next session? (If anything).

Play.

Being a DM is all about balance, both in the short and long term.

Not really "game balance," that's the least interesting part of the job. But you are quickly finding out the opposing forces that you have to balance to some degree when you run a game.

On the one hand, a RPG isn't about you telling others a story, they expect agency and for their characters to be the heroes and make choices and all that. On the other hand, the DM is a player too, and has their own things they want to get out of the game. In addition (the third hand?), players have to respect the other players and not outshine them/steal spotlight time. Similarly, good DMs (and people in general) take feedback, but also people who give feedback need to understand how to do it respectfully.

It sounds like you know all this already which is good for a novice DM, but you're having trouble finding the balance between these that seems to satisfy you, the hero player, and the other players.

Setting Expectations

I will point out that no one's expectations are "wrong" here. There are a lot of folks getting into gaming from online freeform gaming, which I might describe as often being "wish fulfillment gaming," where if you want followers and a magical sniper eye and all that well sure, you just get it. Old school Gygax era D&D DMs would already have had a 'blue bolt of lightning' come from the sky to discipline this knave for daring to want something other than what you put in a dungeon chest for him. And there's a broad spectrum in between those two extremes that people come from and have as default expectations.

I find the best way to do this is have a discussion with the group about what everyone wants. And it's ok to take into account that you're novice, and to remember that not every DM has to be the same and not every campaign that DM runs has to be the same. Be honest and humble, but stick to your guns about what you need.

An example approach you could say "Hey all, let's talk about what we want out of the next game. I'm just getting started DMing so I'd like to do my game by the book, with you all being new adventurers just getting started. If your backplot has followers or is rich or is the king of England or whatever you need to figure out why none of that is around and you're out grifting for goblin gold with these other people. I'll be using magic items from the books and handing out treasure using the rules, we can get more wild in later campaigns. What would interest you all to see in the game?"

If anyone doesn't like that, hear them out, but you can say "well, that's what I plan to run for my next game. If you don't want to play in it, maybe someone else will run something more to your tastes." You can all collaboratively discuss the setup, but in the end just like they don't have to play in it if they don't like it, you don't have to run it if you don't like it. Your game, your rules.

Try Something Else When You Want To

Another approach is to embrace it and play a different game. D&D 5e is pretty traditional in structure. There are more indie/story-games that operate more on the "everything makes up whatever they think is gorilla vs shark level cool." You don't have to run that, or you can run it and something more traditional, in alternation or at the same time. I often "mix it up" by running short freakier games between longer campaigns of traditional games, people get the different experiences and also get the wish fulfillment more out of their system. You don't really even have to not play 5e to do this, you just have to take a different approach and not care about the rules. My first game of D&D was in cars going back and forth to Scout camps, we didn't have dice. We all got our various desired weapons (multiple people had Whelm and Blackrazor from White Plume Mountain, one person just had a crossbow but it was just as deadly) and we spent most of the time fighting each other with the DM just making up results. Sounds more like what hero player expects, you could try it on for size.

But the important thing to teach everyone is that they should explicitly discuss and agree on this kind of game mode, and that anyone's next game can be totally different. "Next game everything will be so by the book it hurts and you'll all be super poor and scraping by in the gutters of Waterdeep and if you look funny at a guardsman they'll beat you to death. Go!"

Playing Nice

A final word on taking criticism. They are hurting your feelings, and any time folks are getting hurt feelings the answer is usually a mix of people talking nicer and people thickening their skin. When they say "ooo when I run a campaign it will be all gnomes and dumplings" or whatever their deal is, they're not criticizing you (and it sounds like none of them have lifted a hand to DM yet anyway so they're kinda talking out of their you-know-what). If you've set a game tone with them per the above, when they complain "I wanted a magic sniper eye and you're being a meanie" you can remind them "Hey, you agreed to how this game was going to go." And it's also fair to express to them "Hey, it hurts my feelings and causes me to consider not running the game if all I her from y'all is how you'd do it different and how I'm doing wrong. I'm learning, please be supportive or keep it to yourself." That's absolutely fair.

And urging people to have mutual respect is a basic interpersonal thing that people struggle with, it is brought to the fore when RPing because it's a close and intense activity (if someone disses your clothing at a party you can just wander into another room, but at a D&D session you are all expected to closely interact the whole time), work on that but don't sweat it. Some people are raised by wolves or spend too much time learning how to interact with people from the Internet and they aren't good at it, so it's OK to say you expect to be treated respectfully but you also should ignore more of their unintended slights.

TL;DR

In conclusion, keep at it. Try different things, both to spread your wings and so people get their various itches scratched over time. It's your game, you don't have to be a dictator but you can be confident about running the game you intend to run and take player feedback into account in your own way. Give and demand respect, that's good for your life not just your game.

Ask two questions, one of yourself and one of them. It is up to you how you go about it as you know your friends and I don't.

1) Ask yourself "Am I enjoying this?". If not you are breaking the first rule of D&D which is "this is supposed to be fun". You might want to think about what a game that you enjoy would look like.

2) Ask your players if they are enjoying the game you are running and would they enjoy the game you want to run in the context of the answer to the first question, as neither you nor anyone alse will run a game very well if you don't enjoy it. (You might also ask them whether they would enjoy the game you want more or less than the present one.)

Then you need to talk to your players about the answers to these questions and get their buy in to the game you want to run, modified by the game they want to play. If there is no making these things work together then you should face that fact, and not beat yourself up trying to do something that isn't going to work out for you. Otherwise you can hold them to what you have all agreed, use it to ask them to modify their behaviour when it isn't working.

The advice by Korvin is excellent. Learn the Julian way to run a game. The fact that you are being so thoughtful about it suggests that you are/will be a good DM, just don't tie yourself up in knots about it, it's a game and it's for fun.

I've found that this is a pretty normal experience in new DND groups. Adapting to being a team and not having players decide that there's something they want their character to become is tough, because it requires a completely different type of "writing" than normal. I think the important thing is to remain firm on rules; the players are likely pushing you as you establish new norms in the group.

If you don't want the problem player to keep pushing, keep using your gentlest and firmest "teacher voice" to say no. I would be willing to bet that after a bit more gaming, they'll figure out what the standards are at this table and settle down. (If not, you may need to outright tell them to cut it out.) You may also want to peruse the responses on this question (which you may notice I asked, while in a similar sort of pickle regarding players with a lot of backstory; the response was overwhelmingly "chill out, some people would kill to have this kind of player involvement", which I've tried to take in stride).

Additionally, I believe firmly in what KorvinStarmast recommends, which is out of game communication. It's been absolutely vital to every game I've ran. In general, I've found my players to be much more trustworthy with metagame information than I expect them to be. Obviously, this is table-dependent, but if your party has the same level of story buy-in as you see with the cast of Critical Role, giving them more chances to get involved in shaping the story and knowing where it's going can get great results. I have a number of players who actively set their characters up for rough situations, or even outright failure, because they have a sense of where the story is going, and they want to create more drama.

Finally, DND with new groups is a kind of a trust fall. It reminds me of a video of a guy trying to convince a little dog to jump off a bed and into his hands. Starting out, your players will likely have a hard time committing to the jump, because they're not sure if you, as the DM, will let them fall. Coaxing them into that rhythm is difficult (and, in one case, required the judicious application of madness traits). Give them time to trust that you'll create interesting things for them to do-- and then make sure you do it!