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

[Rechan]

I agree that it's an effort. Do you not find the effort enjoyable?

The effort is not an end unto itself. The effort has a purpose. It is preparation so everything goes smoothly. And, it is done so that the Dm doesn't sit there gaping like a fish out of water to come up with something to do. The Preparation is to make the game at the table good. If that preparation is not used, then the end result is that it is in fact wasted.

There is, of course, a line to be drawn. Those DMs who feel the need to map out the family history of the farmer the PCs meet on the road for five minutes and then move on, the DM who gives each and every humanoid a name and a goal in life - only for the PCs to wantonly slaughter? That guy is overdoing it, to the detriment of his own enjoyment, since that is clearly not going to get used.

This also isn't limited to mapping/story. Recently, I sat down and wrote up a bunch of monster cards and planned several encounters for a group of enemies the PCs expressed during several sessions they wanted to kill. Suddenly the PCs decided to negotiate with these guys. There goes the time spent working on the encounters/monsters. Granted, they could be re-adapted, but the point still stands.

 

[maddman75]

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that players disregard or disrespect a DM's effort. We're suggesting that a DM shouldn't start from a position of complete ownership over the campaigns they run. Sometimes the rhetoric gets a wee bit overheated...

For example, my own posts can run hot on this subject because I'm a reformed 'controlling DM', clean now for many years. For me this is not an issue of rights or entitlements --frankly I think that framing is silly and unhelpful-- it's about what yields the best campaign. I've found being too... protective of your setting is an impediment, while be open to player suggestions, even, or perhaps especially, the ones that chafe a bit result in more interesting and involving play experiences.

Heh, same here. Used to be all about the carefully crafted plots. I think I finally broke after RttToEE, which I spent hours customizing and tweaking and filling with history. A couple of months later I said something about Tharizdun, and several of my players said "who?" My mind boggled.

But then I realized they still talked about the psychic warrior making a mad dash through the Crater Ridge Mines, or the halfling getting his soul sucked into the pillar with the Deck of Many Things. *That* was what they cared about. Maybe some groups really do like rich details, but most IME want to explore the game world and adventure. So make those parts as awesome as you can, and don't spend so much time on things the players will never see. I'm contemplating a homebrew for 4e, with the stipulation that I won't produce *anything* for it that I can't leave as a one page handout to the PCs.

GM reading you a block of text = snooze.
GM giving you a handout of an ancient manuscript, with a flowy font and aged paper = awesome.

 

[Obryn]

Agreed. I read that thread too, and frankly I think the GM over-reacted. The only thing I'm responding to here is the general "take the GM down a notch" attitude and the brazen disregard of other people's time and energy.

Stick around, and you'll notice that Maddman's thread titles are always more inflammatory than the actual posts.

I think it's clear nobody is saying that players should feel free to be unappreciative clods. Of course your players should value your hard work. Of course it's nice to be thanked for running a game and working on it. But if your hard work is not improving their fun, or even actively diminishing their fun, I don't think you should be surprised when they're not grateful for it.

If none of it ever comes into play? Or if the players decide to take the game in an entirely different direction? No, I don't. All of that effort is entirely wasted in such cases. This is why it's so important to establish what a game is about or what is expected by all parties (i.e., players and GM) prior to actual play. If everybody is on 'different pages' from the beginning, a long-lasting campaign is not in the cards (IME).

Oh, no - I agree, it's critical to get yourself and your players in the same space. If I'm running Call of Cthulhu, I would be nonplussed if a player showed up with Bobby the Barbarian, or a mime who only communicates through charades and interpretive dance.

But that's a pretty basic issue of mutual respect between players and between player and DM, IMHO. I don't think that's what I'm talking about.

-O

 

[underthumb]

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that players disregard or disrespect a DM's effort. We're suggesting that a DM shouldn't start from a position of complete ownership over the campaigns they run. Sometimes the rhetoric gets a wee bit overheated...

Agreed, but let me make a more general point.

On ENWorld, my impression is that there is generalized agreement that GMs need to cede more authority to players. The general undercurrent is that player contributions to a narrative are somehow purer and more worthy than GM contributions. As a consequence, we have post after post that admonishes GMs to consider things from the player's perspective, but rarely the other way around.

 

[Rechan]

If all that work turns into something cool for the players, then good. But if it doesn't, the players don't owe you anything.

Correct, the players don't owe you anything if they zig when you planned for a zag.

However, it still creates frustration. You shouldn't take it out on your players, yes, but what is the proper channel or method of airing this frustration?

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.

 

[jdrakeh]

. . . or a mime who only communicates through charades and interpretive dance.

As a former CoC Keeper, I would love killing this character such an opportunity to educate a new player about the horrors of the Mythos.

[Edit: That said, I have run a comedy/musical adventure in CoC based on the old Bob Hope/Bing Crosby 'Road' movies. . . . The Road to R'lyeh. So, I guess, nobody's perfect.]

 

[Mallus]

If I'm running Call of Cthulhu, I would be nonplussed if a player showed up with Bobby the Barbarian, or a mime who only communicates through charades and interpretive dance.

While not quite that bad, my long-running 3.5e campaign's initial cast was a sophisticated samurai prince (and his monkey-man valet), a bigoted, pyromanic alchemist with a clockwork cat, a homeless man prone to fits of rage who could channel urban spirits, and a deadly martyr, err archer.

 

[Obryn]

Agreed, but let me make a more general point.

On ENWorld, my impression is that there is generalized agreement that GMs need to cede more authority to players. The general undercurrent is that player contributions to a narrative are somehow purer and more worthy than GM contributions. As a consequence, we have post after post that admonishes GMs to consider things from the player's perspective, but rarely the other way around.

ENWorld is full of GMs. Seriously, I think it's 10:1 or more. Many times, GMs need to be reminded to take their players' perspectives into account. It's a helpful counterpoint.

Sometimes a player will post about their GM. They will get the GM POV. They might also get advice from other GMs telling them that's not how they think games should be run. (I know that's what I did in the GM control thread.)

And I don't think anyone's saying player contributions are "purer and more worthy" than GM contributions. I can't remember anyone saying anything like that, to be frank. I think it's important to take them into account, though, and lots of GMs obviously just forget that part.

As a former CoC Keeper, I would love killing this character such an opportunity to educate a new player about the horrors of the Mythos.

Point taken. However, if everyone else is looking to be scared, and the mime is looking to break that mood... well, it's a disconnect.

While not quite that bad, my long-running 3.5e campaign's initial cast was a sophisticated samurai prince (and his monkey-man valet), a bigoted, pyromanic alchemist with a clockwork cat, a homeless man prone to fits of rage who could channel urban spirits, and a deadly martyr, err archer.

You see, with D&D, I kinda expect that sort of thing.

-O

 

[fanboy2000]

Forget plotting out a story....

As a DM I've adopted the approach set out in the holy grail of RPGs: Paranoia. The players are my entertainment. I design my games so that the players will provide me with the maximum amount of entertainment. My players seem to suspect this on some level, yet they keep coming back.

 

[Voadam]

The players should have an equal say in the nature, tone, and events in the game.

Nature: This is generally a pre game decision. Are we playing star wars, D&D, Cthulhu, high magic, no magic, hidden magic, fantasy, modern, sci-fi, etc. IME DMs generally say I want to run a game of X and players either say yes or no. Players asking DMs to run something specific and getting them to agree is much less common IME.

Tone: Players can impact a lot by how they roleplay and interact. Things can be deadly serious, freewheeling and spontaneous, lots of jokes, etc.

Events: Players have to be proactive to have a significant say in a game's events. DMs generally say what events happen, what encounters the players must react to etc.

I'd say players should have an equal opportunity to have a say as compared to each other, but the roles of DM and players in running a game mean they are in different positions for actually determining the nature, tone, and events of a game.

Tone is probably the area the players can have the most say in.