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

[el-remmen]

I actually made this complaint to a couple of my players recently, not because I feel like they should feel overwhelming gratitude, but because I felt like I put in a lot of effort to prepare for the game and the players in question did not take the time to prepare the little that is required of them to play their characters smoothly (i.e. understand their spells and abilities).

It was probably the first time I made this appeal and mentioned the amount of work I put it, but I felt like I had to. "If you enjoy the game I run then understand that I put a lot of work into it and all the appreciation I ask for is for you to be prepared at the table."

I don't think that is too much to ask for.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't think that is too much to ask for.

It's not, and it amazes me that DMs even have to ask. I had a player (I recently asked him to take a break from the game) who simply would not keep his character sheet updated, and he wouldn't work out the math for his attacks ahead of time. Every attack, he had to re-calculate every modifier.

Me, I feel guilty -- as a player -- because I often have a hard time remembering where we left off in the last game session. The idea of having no concern or regard for the work a DM does, as evidenced by the existence of this thread, is genuinely alien to me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's not, and it amazes me that DMs even have to ask. I had a player (I recently asked him to take a break from the game) who simply would not keep his character sheet updated, and he wouldn't work out the math for his attacks ahead of time. Every attack, he had to re-calculate every modifier.

Me, I feel guilty -- as a player -- because I often have a hard time remembering where we left off in the last game session. The idea of having no concern or regard for the work a DM does, as evidenced by the existence of this thread, is genuinely alien to me.

I think some of the issues discussed here come up more often these days due to large number of what I call " extreme casual" players in the hobby. These are the players that join campaigns primarily to socialize and hang out rather than to actually play. While chatting and hanging out are certainly an important part of gaming for me, the game itself is more fun when everyone is engaged and paying attention.

I can understand how a group made up mostly of extreme casual players could be frustrating for a DM that puts time and effort into a campaign played by a group that has to be reminded of where they are, and what they are doing several times a session. These types of players have a good time hanging out and the details of the campaign are simply unimportant to them, no matter how interesting or cool it might be.

This type of casual gaming is fine if everyone at the table is on the same page. Usually, the conflicts arise from casual players joining a group of very involved campaign players or vice versa.

 

[S'mon]

Hmm, players should certainly appreciate effort the GM puts into stuff that makes the game more fun for the players.

Sometimes though the GM is primarily a world-builder, and puts a lot of effort into creating an intricate setting, but this does not translate into at-table fun. In those cases I don't think players are obliged to heap praise on the GM. Particularly if his efforts detract from time spent on stuff that would make for the players enjoying the game more.

Another example is 3e stat blocks. The GM may put a lot of effort into creating 'correct' stat blocks for eg templated monsters & multi-class NPCs. The players might well be a lot happier with ad hoc numbers that are tailored to making the game interesting and fun for them, not stat blocks which are objectively 'correct' per the rules. I know I'd rather have my 1st level PC fight an 18 hp CR 2 ogre doing 1d10+4 damage, than the 'correct' monster manual ogre, for instance.

 

[Hussar]

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

Sorry, the OP I was wrongly referring to was architectofsleep. Got my threads a bit crossed.

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.

Oh, fair enough. I just have a huge personal problem with browbeating my players with my personal preferences. Holding the game hostage over my whims just doesn't sit well with me.

By the same token, I wouldn't play with DM's who did it either.

I've repeatedly stated the same thing - when it comes down to a pure case of taste, I believe that the DM should bow to the players. The DM has an entire world to play with, the player only has that one character. Letting my player have his elf ninja, even though I cringe at the concept, makes him/her happy and really, isn't going to "spoil the game" for me.

Honestly, I cannot think of a single concept that a player would want to play in which I have only personal preference issues, that would totally turn me off a game. I guess some people just have a more refined palate than mine.

 

[S'mon]

"Elf Ninja" - "Wilderninja" - that's what the Ranger class is for - no problem.

Dragonborn, OTOH...

 

[Alan Shutko]

I think an assumption that's been left unstated here is that a DM should enjoy the prep work, and that enjoyment helps mitigate the fact that the DM does more prep work than players.

In order for that to work, the players have to agree to participate in a game that the DM will enjoy preparing. Unless they do, the group is asking the DM to do potentially a lot of work just to serve them. The DM should enjoy it too!

For instance, there are games and campaigns I just don't want to run. I don't ever want to run a 3e game. I have no interest in running a survival horror game. As a group, we all need to come together and that means the DM should make compromises to ensure players have fun at the table, and that players make compromises so that the DM actually enjoys the work he does to ensure the rest of them have fun.

The restaurant chef analogy is completely off the mark. I understand that a chef in the restaurant needs to make the food his patrons want. And when people start paying me to DM a game for them, I'll run whatever the hell they want, however they want it. But as long as I'm an unpaid equal at the table, offering to cook or run a game, the options they get are the options I'm going to enjoy too. If they want something else, one of them can step up and run it. (I'm a lot more flexible in what I'll play than what I'll run, exactly because the amount of prep is so much lower.)

 

[Storminator]

The idea of having no concern or regard for the work a DM does, as evidenced by the existence of this thread, is genuinely alien to me.

The issue is what do you value. I value the fun a DM brings to the table. If a DM does little to no work, yet it's fun, I say "good campaign." Conversely, if the game is no fun at all, the amount of work put into it doesn't make it a good campaign... it's still no fun at all.

I do think that the fun at the table and the amount of work are strongly correlated. I can make the connection between "this is a fun game" and "gee, you worked really hard." In that case, I value the good game, and I appreciate the hard work. But I don't start with the idea that hard work is the important part.

PS

 

[phloog]

I can definitely go along with the 'extreme casual' theory. I have a group that I've played with for approx. 30 years, and they've actually become more casual due to a couple of factors:

1 ) They have lives/wives/kids/etc.

and perhaps more importantly:

2 ) because of #1, we only see each other a couple of times each month, one of those times being the 10 hour or so monthly game day.

#2 means that we often need to catch up on things, talk about nonsense not game-related that we haven't had a chance to talk about, and generally just perform 'friendship maintenance' talk.

As DM, though, it can be frustrating. For my party, I tend to (using DMGenie - without which I'd likely just quit) create and maintain all character sheets, create the adventures, and bring paper copies of each person's character to the table.

No matter how long I've spent to prepare, it is highly likely that we'll spend huge amounts of time on nonsense, and there will be times when I actually have to just go silent until two players realize that their talking has brought a fight to a grinding halt. I can't get assistance from other players in reining them in because they ALL do it at various times, and frankly even I am guilty sometimes.

Early on, before I thought about that second reason, I took it very personally that they were not engaged enough in my adventures. One of my players often FALLS ASLEEP during the game....even though this is because he works 12 hour odd shifts and we play when he's normally asleep, it still stings a bit.

The game is collaborative. Whether the DM wants it to be so or not, the STORIES are told collaboratively (if you're doing it right). If you cannot enjoy the collaboration, find a new group.

It's annoying...it often takes ten times longer to finish an adventure than I'd like, but it's a million times better than not playing. And I'd rather have a stuttering broken game with these guys than a hardcore game with strangers.

But it's supposed to be a recreational activity....the instant it's more annoying than fun for you, or more work than reward, then just stop and find another group or a different hobby.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's annoying...it often takes ten times longer to finish an adventure than I'd like, but it's a million times better than not playing. And I'd rather have a stuttering broken game with these guys than a hardcore game with strangers.

Exactly. Despite wandering in and out of gameplay it sounds like your group has a good time. We only get to play every other week (when things are optimal) so I understand where you are coming from. The feel at the table would be different perhaps, if a new player joined your group who didn't know everyone very well. If this player was very focused on the game it could get frustrating for everyone. Casual? Hardcore? It really doesn't matter until you start to mix & match.