I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I ain't really interested in a book that tells players who like certain styles that they can go screw themselves.
Because the DM is the final arbiter, the DM needs advice on what his game will please and what it won't. Because the DM usually has one of the final says in if someone can join the group or not, the DM needs to be able to identify what kinds of people his game will interest and what kinds of people it won't. The player, on the other hand, only has to identify his own needs. What makes the game fun for HIM. There doesn't need to be a manual on how to be a "good player," because each player will find what makes them happy and gravitate towards it, and that's the best kind of player you can be -- the kind who knows what he wants and goes for it.
The DM does need to be aware of what makes other people happy, and that tastes don't always mesh up. They need to be able to identify these qualities to maximize their own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of those havin' fun at their table. The players don't really need to be told what makes them happy -- they already know it. They measure each DM against that. But a DM, because he has to wed the joy of several different people, needs to know how to find what other people are looking for.
I'm not interested in a tome that tells players to go along with the DM's story even if they're not enjoying themselves, to compromise their own enjoyment because the DM works oh so hard. Pheh. I don't want complacent players who only agree with me to be "good players." I want active participants. And that requires each individual player to identify what they want and to demand it out of me, and me to either rise to the occasion or say "you'll have to find someone else to give you what you want."
Because the DM is the final arbiter, the DM needs advice on what his game will please and what it won't. Because the DM usually has one of the final says in if someone can join the group or not, the DM needs to be able to identify what kinds of people his game will interest and what kinds of people it won't. The player, on the other hand, only has to identify his own needs. What makes the game fun for HIM. There doesn't need to be a manual on how to be a "good player," because each player will find what makes them happy and gravitate towards it, and that's the best kind of player you can be -- the kind who knows what he wants and goes for it.
The DM does need to be aware of what makes other people happy, and that tastes don't always mesh up. They need to be able to identify these qualities to maximize their own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of those havin' fun at their table. The players don't really need to be told what makes them happy -- they already know it. They measure each DM against that. But a DM, because he has to wed the joy of several different people, needs to know how to find what other people are looking for.
I'm not interested in a tome that tells players to go along with the DM's story even if they're not enjoying themselves, to compromise their own enjoyment because the DM works oh so hard. Pheh. I don't want complacent players who only agree with me to be "good players." I want active participants. And that requires each individual player to identify what they want and to demand it out of me, and me to either rise to the occasion or say "you'll have to find someone else to give you what you want."