Player Responsibility for the GM's Fun??

[dragoner]

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.

They do seem to thrive on negativity. In my experience, it is one of the least fun jobs as GM to have to tell players they are out of the game. Games can survive a player getting kicked out or leaving, they can't survive the GM quitting.

 

[billd91]

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".

If there is a difference, then I think a responsibility to "not make it un-fun" sets too low a bar and GMs should expect more than "We won't make this suck for you" from his players. Nope, I expect my players to bring fun to the table, not lack of suck, and that includes fun for me.

 

[Umbran]

If there is a difference, then I think a responsibility to "not make it un-fun" sets too low a bar and GMs should expect more than "We won't make this suck for you" from his players. Nope, I expect my players to bring fun to the table, not lack of suck, and that includes fun for me.

To each their own, I usppose. I'm not a fan of giving the players a responsibility to do things because the GM will personally be entertained by it.

Their play, in general, should be entertaining to me, and if it isn't, I'm not at all sure it is the player's job to fix that.

 

[Sunseeker]

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".

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's the Dm's job to ensure the players are having fun, it's the players job to ensure the DM is having fun.

I don't believe there truly is a grey area between "fun" and "not fun". You are either having fun while running/playing or you are not. Absence of fun may not mean presence of hate, but it is still an absence of fun.

 

[Umbran]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That holds true because, for most of our intents and purposes (aside from laying eggs), the goose and the gander have no real differences. But there are fundamental differences between the GM and Player roles.

To put it another way - all responsibilities should come with the power to execute upon that responsibility, or laying that responsibility is unfair. The player has little power over events, such that it is generally questionable whether they can ensure the GM is having a good time. The players are generally reactive to what the GM puts in front of them. The amount they are allowed to create that the GM doesn't already control is small by comparison. SO, I'm not goig to say they are responsible for my fun at the table - as the main creator of the content that they consume and react to, I'm ultimately responsible.

I don't believe there truly is a grey area between "fun" and "not fun".

What you call "grey area" I call "spectrum".

 

[Sunseeker]

That holds true because, for most of our intents and purposes (aside from laying eggs), the goose and the gander have no real differences. But there are fundamental differences between the GM and Player roles.

To put it another way - all responsibilities should come with the power to execute upon that responsibility, or laying that responsibility is unfair. The player has little power over events, such that it is generally questionable whether they can ensure the GM is having a good time. The players are generally reactive to what the GM puts in front of them. The amount they are allowed to create that the GM doesn't already control is small by comparison. SO, I'm not goig to say they are responsible for my fun at the table - as the main creator of the content that they consume and react to, I'm ultimately responsible.

The player has as much power over the world as you give them, as multiple posters demosntrate.

Making a game enjoyable is fundamentally the same task, regardless of which side of the screen its on. It's the difference between using Wish to do something creative and exciting and using Wish to just make things you don't like go away.

What you call "grey area" I call "spectrum".

Semantics much?
You can call it whatever you want. I argued it doesn't exist. There may be days when you have more, or less fun, but fundamentally, you're either having it, or not.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So on these boards I've often seen discussion around the GM's/DM's responsibility for the fun and enjoyment of his/her players in a game. One example is the idea that the GM should try to accommodate the majority of concepts players bring to a game, or as another example... that PC's and PC backstory generally shouldn't be used or modified by the DM/GM without player consent or even that DM's should limit or confine what they present/create if it's not of direct concern to the players. While I don't necessarily agree with everything I've seen posted around the subject it did get me to wondering if people feel that there are player responsibilities for the GM's fun in the same vein as the ones many believe GM's/DM's have around their players enjoyment of the game and if so what are they?

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.

It’s a collaborative game, and it’s everybody’s responsibility to ensure that everybody is having fun.

What you’re referring to are a number of lines dividing up exactly what responsibilities each participant has. In general these are divided along a DM/player line, but that doesn’t have to be the case. For example I have a couple of players who help with rulings. There are lots of ways to divvy up the responsibilities, and it will vary from table to table. My approach varies depending on the players and what they are looking for from me and the game.

Most of the specifics for everybody starts with the basics. Show up, show up on time, show up prepared. Don’t argue, stick with whatever the table’s rules are for handling ruling questions and issues, etc. These are all about treating you friends with respect.

Beyond that, engage in the game. Really engage, it’s a role playing game after all. That’s really all I ask of my players. In my campaign, they are the primary authors by their actions and role-playing. So there isn’t much there if they don’t engage and do anything. I don’t have pre-written plots a al the Adventure Paths, nor do I use published adventures. So it’s up to the players to let me know what they want. Some groups prefer a more DM-driven story, and if that’s what they need, that’s fine, I can do that too.

The reality is, at least for me, it’s pretty simple. It’s like hanging out with other folks doing anything really, find what you like, and do that. If there’s something you don’t like, then don’t do that.

 

[solamon77]

Yes and no. I think that the players need only try to enjoy the game as it's intended to be played. When I begin a campaign, I give the players a small prospectus of what the campaign is going to be about (usually delivered orally). It includes a brief synopsis on the world and any setting information that's relevant. I then ask that the players create characters that can realistically fit into that world. From that point, I simply would expect them to be those characters. If those conditions are met, I as DM will have great fun.

What would bother me is if players intentionally try to screw up the game or the world by acting in a way that wouldn't fit with the prospectus or any reasonable action that the character they created would take. For instance, walking around and peeing on the NPCs just to "see what happens" or intentionally warring with the other PCs. There is a time and a place for games like that (and sometimes I'll run them), but not in my long-term campaign that I spend hours upon hours creating.

With that said, if the players are doing stuff like that, it's usually the DMs fault anyway. Either the DM has: 1) invited disruptive players into the fold, or 2) created a game that's so boring the players feel the need to "liven it up".

 

[aramis erak]

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".

I need to be having fun to run a game. If I'm not having fun, I quit that group.

The line between "not preventing fun" and "actively encouraging fun" is fuzzy, and the midpoint is, for me at least, pretty damned narrow.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In any group activity, it's everybody's equal responsibility to ensure everybody else is having fun. Nobody's an employee in this situation.

I'd certainly agree that people have responsibility for themselves, too. To an extent, that responsibility is not so much "ensure everybody is having fun" but more "ensure you are not ruining anybody's fun". "Equal" doesn't mean "a lot" or "a burden"; just the normal social amount.

The word "responsibility" has a tenor to it which kinda feels off though; this should just happen organically.

Each participant involved in the game should be contributing to all of the other participant's fun. Game master or player status does not matter. The players are not solely responsible for the GM's fun and the GM is not solely responsible for the players' fun. If each participant does his/her best to provide fun for the rest of the table then the group as a whole should have a great time.