Player Responsibility for the GM's Fun??

[billd91]

Damn right they have a responsibility - they have a responsibility to themselves, to me as the GM, and to their fellow players to make the game a fun event for all of us. As GM, I may have a bit more responsibility, but that doesn't lessen the fact that if their play is bringing me or anybody else at the table down (including themselves), then they're doing it wrong.

 

[Sunseeker]

The DM is not an emotionless game-running machine. If the players make the game un-fun for the DM to run, the DM has every right to quit running for them.

So the players have a responsibility to make sure the DM is having fun, if for no other reason than if they don't they risk having no game at all.

 

[Lanefan]

I suppose I should instead say “group goals” rather than “DM’s plotlines.” I can improvise and adapt, but when a player just says “no, I don’t want to do the thing” after the entire group said “yeah, let’s do the thing!” that makes my job a whole lot more difficult.

I've been that player, in full knowledge I'm roleplaying my way out of the game for a while until I can get a new character up and running.

Some time later - sometimes years later - the DM and I will go to the pub for a beer and sort out what became of the guy I retired.

As far PC conflict, I’m fine with that. It’s when it’s just messing with another character, like saying “Oh, a mysterious pool that we don’t know what it does, I throw Harald into it.” Well-role-played conflict is fine. Just doing stuff to another PC “for the lulz” just seems like bullying.

Fair enough...though even if the attempt to use Harald as a missile weapon is successful what's stopping him from dragging someone else in with him?

Lan-"something like this actually happened in my game - one PC throwing another through a glyphed door - only the thrower fumbled the throw and put himself through instead"-efan

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The players I’m thinking of had all sorts of other disruptive behavior, but at the root of it, I think, was the desire to control the game. Because then it becomes entirely about them and their character. They get to be the “star” and no one else, while they either faff off on whatever they want to do, or grind the game to a halt while everyone else has to convince them to Do The Thing.


I really try to make sure every player gets a chance to shine, but this sort of behavior makes me less inclined to do so for their characters.

When the rest of the players decide to go into a dungeon, and one player says their character isn't going in, it is not the GM's problem, in fact rewarding that one player with one on one gaming disrespects the other players. It has happened to me as GM, and I've looked at the offending player as "really?"

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Hahahahah, I love that.

These days, my solution to this sort of thing is that no PC can do something to another PC without their permission. A simple question of “do you let them do that?” gives PCs the ability to opt in or out of the shenanigans. Some players go for that sort of thing, and some do not.

Lan-"something like this actually happened in my game - one PC throwing another through a glyphed door - only the thrower fumbled the throw and put himself through instead"-efan

 

[TwoSix]

Absolutely. As a player, you should be as sensitive to the DM's interests as the DM is to yours.

If the DM wants to use a certain setting, make sure you familiarize yourself with that setting and ideally, make a character that's reflective of the setting.

If the DM is running a game that depends on player input, come up with some good input.

If the DM wants to run a sandbox, be proactive in hunting down new plots.

If the DM is running a more scripted adventure, you can explore the boundaries, but don't derail the whole thing.

 

[dragoner]

I really try to make sure every player gets a chance to shine, but this sort of behavior makes me less inclined to do so for their characters.

Trying to hog the spotlight is bad, I actively will ignore characters that try to do it by going against the rest of the party, it's like their fun begins when everyone else's ends? Nope.

 

[aramis erak]

I realize this is a very subjective question but I'd be interested in hearing whether people think the players have any responsibility for their GM's fun and if so what the responsibility of players are when it comes to their GM having fun and enjoying the game.

As a GM, if I'm not having fun, the game isn't going to last more than a few sessions.

So, yes, the players have a reciprocal obligation about my fun.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That’s a good way to deal with it. I think those sorts of players tend to thrive even on negative attention from the DM and group.

The last person that pulled this nonsense at my table got kicked out of the group. It wasn’t just because of that, but that sort of behavior didn’t help his case.

Trying to hog the spotlight is bad, I actively will ignore characters that try to do it by going against the rest of the party, it's like their fun begins when everyone else's ends? Nope.

 

[Umbran]

The DM is not an emotionless game-running machine. If the players make the game un-fun for the DM to run, the DM has every right to quit running for them.

Is there a difference between a responsibility not to make it un-fun, and a responsibility to make it fun?

I tend to think there is a difference. "Make sure X happens," is different form, "Make sure Y does not happen."

I don't feel the players owe it to me to take specific actions to make sure I am having a good time. I expect them to *not* take actions that would tank my fun - because that's pretty congruent with, "not take actions that will tank the game, in general".