Forked Thread: DMs - No one cares how long you worked (was: Rant -- GM Control...)

[maddman75]

Forked from: Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far?

Lastly, he said he would not compromise, and, the part that really stuck in my throat, was when he said, "if I'm going to spend hours upon hours preparing a game so I can DM it for other people, my enjoyment needs to come before theirs." This, I don't get. I'm not just some pawn in his world, there to play for his pleasure. We are all in this together. Doesn't it need to be fun for everyone?

I really disagree with this attitude. I run games because I enjoy running them, simple as that. I don't expect nor do I deserve to control the game just because I did prep work. If you don't enjoy DMing, then let someone else do it. If no one enjoys it, play a board game or something. Or play a game someone does enjoy running.

The players should have an equal say in the nature, tone, and events in the game. I don't, and the people I play with don't show up for a game to have a DM show off his delicately crafted campaign setting. No one cares. They want to adventure, play out their character's issues and goals, and have some fun. If your setting enhances that, then good! If not, then abandon it.

But in no case should you lord over the other players because of your choice of how to spend your free time. 4e with a DDI subscription can require very little in the way of prep time.

Just my opinion.

 

[Crothian]

As a player I do care and respect the amount of time my DM puts into a game. At the same time I know my DM respects the time and effort I put into my character. When we differ on our opinions I know we can talk it out and reach a compromise. This is independant of the game we are playing. It's all about trust, respect, and being friends with the people I game with.

 

[Scribble]

Since he's most aware of what the adventures will be, how the world works in the campaign, and probably most familiar with the history of the world and such, it's part of the DM's job to keep things on track and keep the "feel" of the campaign consistant.

Just like a director of a movie will seek to keep the look and feel of the film on track and consistant.

But he's not an all powerful dictator. (Or at least shouldn't be.)

Like any good leader he should be open to the thoughts and feelings of his players. Just like the good director listens to suggestions and thoughts of his actors, and editor and cinematographer.

If there's a reason that something won't "fit" right with the campaign world then the DM should explain his feelings on the issue, and WHY he doesn't want something in the game.

It should never simply be "cuz I don't want it there."

Explaining why goes a long way.

 

[Wootz]

I can understand wanting some solace for your work, but the work has to be done with the premise that all that is being done is being done for the sake of the group in mind. If a DM thinks to himself "man, I would really like to see my group go through THIS" while writing these campaigns, instead of "what kind of things would they like to see happen at this point?" then he is a terrible DM. D&D isn't 4 hours of "make your friends do whatever you want for your amusement" otherwise you should just go play truth-or-dare with all the other 12 year olds.


(not that there's anything wrong with 12 year olds... though maybe older people shouldn't be playing those kinds of games with them <.< )

 

[billd91]

I really disagree with this attitude. I run games because I enjoy running them, simple as that. I don't expect nor do I deserve to control the game just because I did prep work. If you don't enjoy DMing, then let someone else do it. If no one enjoys it, play a board game or something. Or play a game someone does enjoy running.

The players should have an equal say in the nature, tone, and events in the game. I don't, and the people I play with don't show up for a game to have a DM show off his delicately crafted campaign setting. No one cares. They want to adventure, play out their character's issues and goals, and have some fun. If your setting enhances that, then good! If not, then abandon it.

But in no case should you lord over the other players because of your choice of how to spend your free time. 4e with a DDI subscription can require very little in the way of prep time.

Just my opinion.

While I agree that there should be no lording it over other players or putting your own pleasure as a DM ahead of theirs and you should solicit and be open-minded about player input, there's no way I agree that players should have equal say in nature, tone, and events in the game. Puting in the time has to account for something and the DM should maintain some authority control over the environment the PCs will interact with. The DM shouldn't run roughshod over the PCs but he should be ready to prune things back if, when giving them a foot, they try to take a yard.

 

[Voadam]

I run games because I enjoy running them, simple as that. I don't expect nor do I deserve to control the game just because I did prep work.

I agree prep work is not a major issue. I do, however, expect people who run games to control those games. That is what I expect from a DM. Players play their characters while DMs run the world those players play in. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter to me whether a DM is winging it, running a module, or spent hours prepping for the game, their role is to be in charge of the game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm with he DM on this one. I'm putting in a ton of work to play the game how I want to play it, and I'm going to insist on playing that way. Sure the players can have input - I've added classes, races, geographic area, etc to support their ideas, but if something conflicts with the theme or established canon, I'm not going to do it. If I'm going to put that much work in, I insist that the result be fun for me. If it's not fun for a player, I can find a replacement or we can just get together to play video games. I'm not going to put in a ton of work and not have fun with it.

 

[Umbran]

Doesn't it need to be fun for everyone? Yes. But does every single iota of it need to be fun for everyone?

Players should not have to give way on every single thing. However, they should expect to compromise on occasion - especially in game setup, where the GM is trying to balance a whole mess of factors at once to come up with a cohesive whole.

The game is a collaborative effort - nobody should go into it thinking that they'll get everything they want. Either as a GM or a player, you should pick your battles carefully.

 

[Mallus]

If I'm going to put that much work in, I insist that the result be fun for me.

What is it, exactly, that you derive enjoyment from?

I'm not asking this is snarky way, I'm just curious, because for me the pleasure of DM'ing comes from entertaining my friends. Maintaining the integrity of --and fidelity to-- some made-up world is secondary at best (and mind you, I love the worlds I've made up...both links in my sig demonstrate the lengths I go to when homebrewing).

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

DMing

I DM because I enjoy it, not because I want to put in work in exchange for someone's gratitude. Since I am DMing because I want to, my players owe me no additional consideration.

That said, I consider it one of my responsibilities as a good DM to set a tone for the game and enforce it to some degree. That isn't me being a jerk or lording it over people -- it's something I do because I think it will make the game more fun for everyone.

Ken