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

[carmachu]

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.

That. Neither's fun comes before the other. Its a shared experience. Both have to have their fun, and neither at the others expense.

 

[carmachu]

What if someone new joins the game at a later date and does not like the restrictions? Do we stop everyone's fun for the new guy? Or do we tell him to either accept the game or move on?

If one is joining an already existing game, then yes its either accept it or they move on(or are let go).

We recently had this issue in our group. We had an awesome group, but after 18 months, one player got transferred to another state. Part of our group requirements is that we have an online yahoo group where stuff in character gets done(and unstated that one on one stuff is done via email with teh DM). PLus its how we coordiate game days for 6 players and 1 DM.

The latest one wasnt keeping up. Wasnt checking in, and wasnt responding to emails. Frankly slowing the game down. He's not been asked back again. We've moved on to look for another.

 

[Wootz]

To put it another way, if the comedian works hard on a joke and no one laughs, it still hurts his feelings. So how should he deal with that? "Just be funnier" helps for the future, but not his current emotional state.

If he tells jokes nobody laughs at, he shouldn't be a comedian. Hard on him, sure, but tell that to the people that feel they've wasted their $20 and 2 hours of their time.

 

[Obryn]

Ah, and here is where we differ. I have been playing in a campaign now for close to five years. It is very dark and grim. Four of us have been in the campaign since the beginning with a fifth player player coming in in year two. On occasion we have had others come and play only to find that their style does not mesh with our campaign. We are not about to change this campaign because someone knew wants to join but does not like the parameters that we have set up. They can either accept and join in or go somewhere else to play.

I'm going to say this is a completely different situation.

If a DM and players are running a game with a certain tone and are happy with it, they should of course make sure a new player wants to play the same game. The important things are (1) Everyone is on the same page, and (2) There's at least some flexibility.

-O

 

[Beginning of the End]

I really disagree with this attitude.

I agree with the attitude insofar as I'm not going to run a game I don't enjoy running.

Insofar as you can cater to your players while still enjoying the game yourself, I think it's obviously a good idea to cater to your players.

If we don't have any common ground, then you shouldn't be playing in my campaign. (And in some cases that may just apply to this particular campaign. I play D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and Burning Empires for very different reasons. And someone who's happy in my D&D campaign may not enjoy my Call of Cthulhu campaign. Or vice versa.)

I think it's unreasonable to expect the GM to do something he doesn't enjoy. And, yes, the fact that GMs just flat-out put more work into campaigns than players do is a factor in that.

I, personally, benefit from having a very wide palate. When I have to make hard taste decisions, it usually has more to do with making sure the tastes of the other players are being met and not my own personal aesthetic. But not everyone will have those broad tastes -- nor is that a necessary requirement for being a DM.

DMing, for me, is like being a cook. If you want to be a good cook, you need to derive pleasure from your patrons enjoying your work. You can't sit back, make gourmet food, and whine because your customers just wanted a burger and fries. It doesn't matter how great the food might have been in some objective sense. A cook who serves food with fancy french names to a dude who just wanted a burger is a cook who is a failure.

But some people want to be chefs because they like preparing gourmet foods (and they have no interest in making burgers); and other people just like to barbecue in the backyard (and have no interest in making gourmet food).

Players who come to a backyard barbecue expecting gourmet food have an unreasonable expectation. People who go to a 5-star restaurant expecting a Big Mac also have an unreasonable expectation.

And I think it's silly to expect the guy barbecuing in his backyard to start preparing a dinner of gourmet food just because somebody came along ad siad, "I want gourmet food!"

Well, that's nice. But this is a barbecue.

EDIT: To extend the analogy, let me also say this. If a guy is barbecuing burgers and steaks and one of the guests brings over a chicken breast and says, "Do you mind if we throw this on the grill?" Then, unless somebody has an allergy, I think saying "no" doesn't make much sense, either.

 

[Hussar]

I 100% agree that it's a shades of grey issue. I don't think that players should have equal say to the DM in the creation of the campaign (unless that's set at the outset - possibly sharing DM duties would be one good example of this), but, I don't think that the DM's veto power is absolute either.

I've stated this pretty clearly before. When it comes down to a case of nothing else than personal preference, I prefer to just bite the bullet as a DM and "say yes". I may not like your character concept, I may think its stupid, but, I don't have any real objective issues - balance, genre, breaking established canon, whatever - so, yeah, I'll step back and say, "Sure, go ahead." Particularly if the player will make any effort at all to compromise.

So, yeah, put me in the same boat as those who think DM's should take things back a notch or two and not consider their game world to be this inviolate work of art which only they can properly take care of. If the player can come up with a concept that fits in the game, and it doesn't have any real mechanical issues, just say yes.

A happy player makes for a ten times better game than an unhappy one.

Note, this is just my 2 cp, and should not be seen as anything else. If you want to play setting cop for your campaign, more power to you. I personally don't like it and I don't play that way anymore.

 

[Mark]

A DM need not run a game if the DM is not having fun and the DM should find another game. Sometimes that means a game completely identical to the one the DM is leaving except without one of the rules or options. Sometimes this transition can be seamlessly realized by the DM simply telling a player, "No."

 

[Vegepygmy]

Well, that's nice. But this is a barbecue.

This.

I enjoy DMing. I take great pleasure in pleasing my players. But I'm not DMing just to please my players.

Like the chef who enjoys preparing gourmet food, I enjoy creating a certain kind of game. If that's not the kind of game you want to play, you're at the wrong restaurant (mixed metaphor, I know).

 

[Hussar]

So, Mark, Vegepygmy, you're essentially saying that the OP should just suck it up and she's 100% in the wrong then?

 

[Mark]

So, Mark, Vegepygmy, you're essentially saying that the OP should just suck it up and she's 100% in the wrong then?

I believe maddman75 happens to be both a DM and a man.


In the other thread, after asking architectofsleep a series of questions -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...nt-gm-control-taking-too-far.html#post4642953

And getting this response -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-gm-control-taking-too-far-2.html#post4643057

I replied with this advice -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-gm-control-taking-too-far-2.html#post4643208


Hussar, your request for a "100%" B&W answer on this (or anything) is extreme and unreasonable. Obviously, with only the one side of the conflict being portrayed, there is no way to know the exact facts of what has gone on with that particular group. Despite that, and having been given the OP of the other thread's view, any advice that will prove useful has to be framed in terms of what the OP of the other thread can actually control or, at least, affect. This thread, however, is framed in terms of the options a DM has and my post in this thread is true to that point of view. Ultimately, a DM, any DM, does not have to run a game if they do not wish to run a game, and if they are not having fun they should keep in mind that they have that option, just as a player has the option not to play or the option to pick up the reins of DMing themself. The thing to always remember is that you cannot make someone else do something they do not want to do, so you have to approach any negotiation of the parameters of a game with that in mind.