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

[Raven Crowking]

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

I've never seen it happen, either.

But I've read threads saying it happened here on EN World.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

This is a good point. It's very easy to spoil the players' fun if the DM forgets that the players are there to have fun (however it is that they have fun). And I too have seen it happen too frequently.

 

[Odhanan]

This is a good point. It's very easy to spoil the players' fun if the DM forgets that the players are there to have fun (however it is that they have fun). And I too have seen it happen too frequently.

Thing is, it's not an either/or type of situation, here. Building an argument to say "EITHER we use the shorthand, OR the game's going to Hell because the players' fun is spoiled!" looks like a strawman to me, because I never implied such a thing. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the reverse: that I agree with the spirit of the one-liner, but not with the fact it is a one-liner.

It's not like suddenly, if you don't use the shorthand "the GM must make sure everyone has fun", you'll suddenly forget as GM that indeed your responsibility is to ensure that everyone has opportunities to enjoy the game to the fullest.

But I've read threads saying it happened here on EN World.

RC

Nod. Can't use the search feature on this board. That is not unheard of, however.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, that's fair enough. I think the limitations of a one-liner are well understood, but still... like I said, fair enough.

Again: are you A. Macris? You seem to be switching over time in this thread from having just posted a link to an idea you saw on a blog somewhere to actually defending it in the context of an author.

 

[Odhanan]

Again: are you A. Macris? You seem to be switching over time in this thread from having just posted a link to an idea you saw on a blog somewhere to actually defending it in the context of an author.

Sorry: I must have missed the question the first time around!

No. I am not Alexander Macris. My name's Ben.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not like suddenly, if you don't use the shorthand "the GM must make sure everyone has fun", you'll suddenly forget as GM that indeed your responsibility is to ensure that everyone has opportunities to enjoy the game to the fullest.

Indeed.

Nod. Can't use the search feature on this board. That is not unheard of, however.

Again, indeed.

It may not be common in real life, but it doesn't seem to be all that uncommon here on EN World.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

Secondly, and perhaps more critically, DMs often have so many objectives for their games that they lose sight of the fact that "fun" should be one of the more important ones, if not the most important one.

They "often" do this? Really?

'cause the implication is that referees often prioritize something other than fun when planning a game to run, which makes me wonder how the hobby survives.

Or maybe it's not really all that often.

All too often, DMs excuse the unfun events in their game with simple, trite, cop-outs such as "That's how the dice came up," or "That's how the NPC would have reacted," or "That's what would have logically happened." To me, that's like a player saying, "I was just roleplaying my character."

Holy false equivalencies, FireLance!

A referee who attempts to maintain verisimilitude is no different than a gamer cockblocking the referee and/or the other players?

You're the DM. Unless you're running a sandbox game (and in some cases, even if you're running a sandbox game) . . .

Yes, even if you're running a status quo setting.

. . . you control the setup of the world, what's happening in the world, the nature of the challenges that the players face, the characters of the enemies and allies they interact with, and the rewards and consequences of success and failure. You shouldn't have to sacrifice logic or consistency for fun because you should always be able to set up events in the game to unfold logically and consistently in a way that would be fun for the players even if their characters fail.

On this I (mostly) agree.

If you're playing a game about adventurers, then every direction the adventurers turn should offer opportunities for the adventurers to pursue their goals and ambitions, the raw material of adventure if you will.

In addition to creating a setting which offers this world of adventure for the player characters, I also work with the players to set clear expectations about their roles and my role in the game, so they're not cut loose with no idea how to best utilize that raw material to make a finished product that is uniquely their own.

Now they're likely to experience any number of failures along the way, some far more serious than others, and not all of those failures are likely to fun in and of themselves. Getting a rapier through your character's eye or standing next to an exploding keg of black powder isn't necessarily an occasion for high-fives around the table. What should be fun are the events leading up to that circumstance, and, should that Rubicon of failure be crossed, the expectation that the game will continue to be fun for the player with a new character.

And if you mess up, and you will, unless you're some kind of DMing prodigy, you should feel bad. Don't try to hide behind your excuses, learn from your mistakes, try not to repeat them, and become a better DM for your players.

Agreed.

 

[Umbran]

Is it possible for a GM to take the advice too far? Sure. But it is possible to take any advice too far. It is possible to take anything too far. You can poison yourself with aspirin, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have it in your medicine chest.

Now, as to whether GMs sometimes forget to make player fun a focus... How many discussions have we had here about things where the GM does things for himself, and not the players - arguments about sandbox vs railroad, about DM PCs, about fudging? How many times has someone suggested that something could be a slippery slope of the GM putting themselves before the players? Many many hours of writing have gone into these - so either some folks around here think the potential problem is real, or they like hearing themselves talk a lot.

It would seem to me that the general posit that a major job of the GM should be helping to ensure player fun is the blanket principle behind all those other discussions. If you've ever taken the position that the players have to be protected from GM misbehavior in other threads, and now balk at this posit, I truly don't understand where you're coming from.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is it possible for a GM to take the advice too far?

I don't think people are making the claim that the GM will take this advice too far, but rather that the players will take this advice as an entitlement to do nothing other than sit back and expect to be entertained.

Now, as to whether players sometimes forget that they have to make the game fun too... How many discussions have we had here about exactly that thing? Many many hours of writing have gone into this - so either some folks around here think the potential problem is real, or they like hearing themselves talk a lot.

Probably both, I suspect.

But here's the thing.....you can remind the GM that he has to work to make the game fun without making a blanket statement that it is the GM's job. Which rather implies that it is the GM's job, and not everyone's job. This is a case where you really can eat your cake and have it too. All you need is a bit less "sound bite" and a bit more careful wording. To wit:

It is everyone's job to make the game fun, but the power you weild as GM puts a special onus on you to consider everyone at the table. If you have a disproportionate amount of the blame when things go poorly, at least you also have a disproportionate amount of the praise when things go well.​

I am sure that better wording could be devised...that took me less than a minute.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

Many many hours of writing have gone into these - so either some folks around here think the potential problem is real, or they like hearing themselves talk a lot.

You say that as if they were mutually exclusive!