The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Campbell]

That's basically what I mean. The rules are designed to emulate the genre, and so the GM is restricted in how to adjucate situations ("scene framing", to use a term I've seen you use often). I generally want my sim to be process as opposed to genre.

I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate, but yeah the restrictions are different in AW then they are in something like D&D. You don't usually get to decide what success looks like, but an AW GM has pretty broad powers in adjudicating what failure looks like. A lot of the stuff a GM is expected to do in Apocalypse World would be unacceptable in a typical D&D game. Still, you pretty much have the right of it.

 

[Reynard]

I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate

Are they?

 

[Maxperson]

The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.

The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.

The DM does generally put in the Lion's share of the work. Take @Campbell. Even if he only puts only 25% of the work, if he has 5 players they are putting in around 15% each, so he's putting in more than any player is. However, the DM is not there to be the entertainment for the players. It's not the DM's job to do voices and put on a show. That said, fun is the goal of the game, so the DM is responsible to provide a fun game(even if some moments are not fun, like the death or capture of a PC). So are the players, though. They are also individually responsible to provide a fun game experience by not being asshats or Leroy Jenkinsing monsters(unless the group enjoys that). As a group fun is our responsibility to one another.

 

[Maxperson]

As a DM, I don't even try in the slightest to make the game fun. I make the game interesting. Then the players bring the fun.

I would argue that interesting = fun. You provide fun by making it interesting. The players provide fun by interacting with the game world that interests them. Fun is a full group effort.

 

[pemerton]

I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate

Are they?

Yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps everyone is responsible for their own fun, and to not create an unfun experience for others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes.

Can you elaborate? I'm curious as to your take on this.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps everyone is responsible for their own fun, and to not create an unfun experience for others.

Not unfun =/= fun, though. The responsibility goes a bit further than that since fun is the ultimate goal of the game. You can have a game that isn't unfun, but is meh and not fun.

 

[MGibster]

Are they?

I think so. A GM is generally expected to follow the rules though it's their prerogative to break them when necessary. But the GM needs to have a good reason for breaking the rules. I know I've misinterpreted rules and ended up apologizing to players later because I had prevented them from doing something they should have been able to do.

 

[Reynard]

I think so. A GM is generally expected to follow the rules though it's their prerogative to break them when necessary. But the GM needs to have a good reason for breaking the rules. I know I've misinterpreted rules and ended up apologizing to players later because I had prevented them from doing something they should have been able to do.

Emphasis mine.

That takes out the "always" part, which was the primary element I was questioning.