It's Not the GM's Job to Make Sure People Have Fun

[Odhanan]

(Great stuff)

I agree with all this. I agree with the spirit that inspired the catch-phrase too!

What I'm saying is that I feel repeating the shorthand "the GM must make sure that everyone has fun" as a sort of mantra, a catch-phrase, without any sort of development or caveats, is not a good thing, because it can create really bad habits at some gaming tables. Especially when such gaming tables learn to run the game for the first time drinking from the Kool-Aid without knowing any better or thinking any further.

This, to me, is *not* a good shorthand.

 

[Obryn]

You're calling "the GM makes sure everyone has fun" a shorthand on which the OP builds a strawman.
I'm calling it a simplistic one-liner which invites clarification and nuance, and thus ultimately fails as a shorthand.

Sure. But if you "clarify" it in a way which nobody's actually doing, and then argue against it, what are you accomplishing?

-O

 

[Odhanan]

Sure. But if you "clarify" it in a way which nobody's actually doing, and then argue against it, what are you accomplishing?

-O

Such an absolute!

Nobody's doing? You are telling me that nobody, at all, would ever take this statement to mean that, as players, they can just sit back and let the GM "do tricks" for them, and/or if anyone doesn't have fun during the game, then this must mean the GM is entirely at fault?

 

[Desdichado]

What I'm saying is that I feel repeating the shorthand "the GM must make sure that everyone has fun" as a sort of mantra, a catch-phrase, without any sort of development or caveats, is not a good thing, because it can create really bad habits at some gaming tables.

I can't think of a single bad habit that anyone would develop from keeping that mantra in mind.

:shrug:

 

[Odhanan]

I can't think of a single bad habit that anyone would develop from keeping that mantra in mind.

:shrug:

See my post just above yours, or this:

"Why point this out? Because I think this notion can have a very nasty effect at some gaming tables, by either encouraging players to view the GM as "the entertainer", remaining passive, waiting for the GM to perform his tricks on them, and/or encouraging players to blame the GM exclusively if someone didn't have fun during the game (It's the equivalent of "it's the GM's fault!" applied to an actual game instead of an ENWorld thread. If it is Godwining threads, then it can Godwin games, too)."

 

[Nifft]

I'm sure Elaine wouldn't be a good GM...she wouldn't find many people "screen-worthy."

Only the DM must prove him (or her) self worthy of the screen.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Henry]

The original statement takes it too literally - like any pithy aphorism, trying to overanalyze it means you miss the point, sometimes entirely.

I'll posit it's NOT not the GM's job to ensure everyone has fun, either.

 

[Mallus]

Because I think this notion can have a very nasty effect at some gaming tables, by either encouraging players to view the GM as "the entertainer", remaining passive, waiting for the GM to perform his tricks on them, and/or encouraging players to blame the GM exclusively if someone didn't have fun during the game...

I've never seen this actually happen. It sounds like a theory in search of practice.

In my experience, they're two principle causes of player passivity. One, the player is shy. Two, the DM puts the kibosh on everything the player's attempt to do in-game. In neither case does the DM conceiving of himself as an entertainer factor in.

 

[Desdichado]

See my post just above yours, or this:

I've never seen this actually happen. It sounds like a theory in search of practice.

I hate to post a ditto post, but... well, ditto.

I can imagine, I guess, a hypothetical situation in which bad habits can be formed by the expectation that it's the GM's sole responsibility, but only in a "if I squint really hard at it, I guess I can sorta imagine it... hypothetically" kind of way.

It's much easier for me to imagine bad habits being formed by assuming that it's not the GM's responsibility. And those are ones that I've actually seen. Fairly commonly, I'm afraid.

Also: is A. Macris you?

 

[Imaginary Number]

I can imagine, I guess, a hypothetical situation in which bad habits can be formed by the expectation that it's the GM's sole responsibility, but only in a "if I squint really hard at it, I guess I can sorta imagine it... hypothetically" kind of way.

It's much easier for me to imagine bad habits being formed by assuming that it's not the GM's responsibility. And those are ones that I've actually seen. Fairly commonly, I'm afraid.

I agree with Hobo. It's much easier to go wrong assuming that the GM isn't responsible for providing the fun than the other way around. I think it's also true that the GM can't be charged with guaranteeing fun for everyone; the players, as free agents, always can choose to act in such a way as to annoy some other player(s) and/or the GM. Those problems, however, typically are the result of poor communication about group expectations for the game and/or someone just being a jackass rather than about the GM developing fun-related "bad habits." I suppose I can imagine a really Monty Haul-y, give-the-players-everything-they-want-to-ensure-they're-having-fun game somewhere out there, but I've never seen one in practice. And if the players in that game are actually having fun with it, I guess I don't see that there's a problem.