DMs Bored as Players Thread
An interesting thread that points out how many DMs are bored when they play. I've taken two things away from that thread. First, D&D combat is boring for many people. Second, more relevantly, DMs tend to not enjoy playing because as players they have limited control over the game.
It works like the real world. The player experiences the world through his senses and makes choices based on those stimuli. He can modify the world in modest ways. He can turn left or turn right on the road. He can't imagine a third road though that doesn't exist.
When I enter a restaurant, I see people seated or sitting at the bar. I can interact with those people. I can't though just imagine into existence someone else sitting at the bar.
But here's the thing... there's not another person imagining people into a bar in the real world. In a game, there is.
So what we're actually talking about is not the real world. So let's set that aside.
Why is it the case, in your opinion, that only the DM can determine who is in a restaurant?
For purposes of play I personally would never operate based on that assumption. I don't believe you're giving the game a fair shot that way.
You don't think it's safe to assume that the average home brew world isn't as compelling as ones that have sparked multimedia behemoths?
I think it's far fairer to the DM to assume their world is going to be moderately interesting.
I'd also say it's likely fairer to them to expect the setting itself to be the less important part of running the game when compared to creating interesting situations for the PCs.
If you're being serious, then that is a perspective I barely understand and will likely never share. For me things need to have an existence outside my personal imagination to be immersive as a player.
The issue is that in the real world, when you look around the room, you see what you see. You don't need anyone else to tell you what you see.
So for some folks, when faced with mundane situations like this, it's far more immersive to simply state what's happening.
I'm not sure that is a fair statement, the ones that play many of the indie games such as
@pemerton, play from my perspective (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) ultra-sandboxes, the players drive the story and the direction of the story even more so than games that Lanefan and myself are running.
You'd discounting quite a number of posters if you think that is fringe.
Well, I think there's a difference between allowing the players to lead the game and letting them wander around aimlessly with nothing meaningful happening. As you say,
@pemerton can answer himself, but I'm reasonably certain that he would frame the characters into some kind of conflict before too long. Where as
@Lanefan would happily watch them wander about town accomplishing nothing if that's what was happening.
Nothing stops your character from punching the nearest dude if the bar has other patrons. In games I enjoy I just won't be able to dictate who the dude is. Maybe it's no one special and I lay them out with one punch, maybe it's the Duke's favorite son and I just made a powerful enemy. Maybe it's a high level monk the DM was intending to introduce to the group and he deflects my inept punch back into my face. That to me is what makes the game immersive. I only know what my player knows and the world responds to my words and actions.
But it's the DM who's reacting, not the world. I get that you're trying to simulate some kind of causality here, but it boils down to the DM deciding what happens.
That's no more the way the world works than the player deciding.
So to look at the example offered, the player says their character is drunk and looking to start a fight. As GM, I'd ask them with who? I'd let the player describe the person because why not? So he says "I pick the richest looking guy here". Then we see what happens as a result. Based on just that basic description, I can imagine some potential consequences.
This allows the player to have some say about how things go. Turns out the rich guy is the duke's nephew... well, the player shouldn't be surprised. He had some say in that.
This is the player and the GM collaborating more.
Now, if people don't want to play a game that works this way, that's fine. But to say they can't even understand how it would work? I feel that says more about them than it does this type of game. Or to say that this kind of play is not functional? Or that a DM who allowed things to work this way is not worthwhile? Yeah... that's just BS.
