• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

Hussar

Legend
Dude, relax. I've played with hundreds of players over the years, so it's not like I'm the only one making assumptions.

I'm sorry but the idea that I should be fully engaged just because you happened to buy a module this week is totally foreign to my experience.

The fact that you are the only one willing to step up to the DM plate says volumes about your players. For me, there's a constant tension that if I'm not bringing the A game, there's five other people more than willing to step up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Basically every game of D&D I've ever played has started this way or at least very similarly.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. There were several of those podcasts and I don't recall which one "access the plot dump" took place in (likely 2 or 3 - not going to rewatch them to confirm). Its not the "setting the scene for the players at the beginning of the adventure or at the beginning of their present situation" that I think you're pointing too. That, of course, is a very fundamental aspect of GMing, story-telling, and screen-writing *. What I'm referring to is something that occurs mid-adventure; (1) heavy-handed GM exposition (typically through some NPC or another) in the place of a coherent, interwoven narrative that the players are mentally and emotionally engaged in and (2) the use of illusory mechanical resolution to access said exposition (when the plot/information dump was going to occur regardless).

Here is another way to put it. You know how truly bad movies "convey little but say a lot" or maybe are "full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing?" The thematic material or the clues/portents of the big reveal are clumsily rendered or so opaque that you're sitting there half-way through going "...what the hell?" You're frustrated, you're bored, and you've mentally disengaged.

Well, at some point in time during the creative process, the writers (etc) realized this was a jumbled pile of muck and the audience will have been totally lost or disinterested. How do they solve this? By further damaging the film. Instead of the big reveal being brief, agile, and impactful, they have to literally lead the audience back through the entire movie through an information-dump montage or the heavy expository monologuing by an on-screen persona or the voice-over actor.

Now take that phenomenon and couple it with a tactic of telling the audience to roll the dice to see if they can access this information-dump, knowing full well that the "rolling the dice" in this case is just an illusionist's parlor trick. The information dump is coming. No matter what. But its a game so, because of that fact, they have to make the players "feel" like they're actually "playing" and "pushing the game forward" (even though when, as in this case, they're not).

If I'm elitist (or whatever descriptor you would choose to use) because I don't like the techniques of (a) illusionist GMing (the behind the screen manipulation of action resolution mechanics while presenting them as being authentic drivers of play) and (b) plot/information dump by way of said illusionist GMing, then guilty as charged. It is damaging to a table agenda that puts forth the premise that the driver of play/story should be (1) conflict-oriented/emotionally-provocative situations + (2) player action declarations (by way of their characters) + (3) the table's consultation of the resolution mechanics (as required) and obeyance to their results + (4) the emotional/dramatic fallout of the synthesis of those prior 3. 2-4 cease to have any meaning when play is governed (authored) by illusionist GMing. That means that the players have little to no agency at the table and might as well just be listening to the GM's story.


* There are, of course, virtues that deft GMs/storytellers/screen-writers would do well to observe there, one of the most important being "less is more" or perhaps "convey much but say little." Sort of the provacative, minimalist approach of Cormac McCarthy.
 

Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
Dude, relax. I've played with hundreds of players over the years, so it's not like I'm the only one making assumptions.

I'm sorry but the idea that I should be fully engaged just because you happened to buy a module this week is totally foreign to my experience.

The fact that you are the only one willing to step up to the DM plate says volumes about your players. For me, there's a constant tension that if I'm not bringing the A game, there's five other people more than willing to step up.
None of them really want to DM because they want a more passive experience. They want someone to tell them a story that they get to interact with. It's my job to provide that story. I'm bad at providing stories, so I look to other people who write better than I do to write them for me. Thus, I buy adventures.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be fully engaged simply because it is a module. I really am confused by this attitude that a module is something to look down upon and show derision towards. For me, it's almost always the opposite. Most of the DMs I've played under that have attempted to write their own stories end up writing contrived crap that they think is a masterpiece. They'll run around telling anyone who will listen about how great a DM they are and how their players are lucky that they put the extra effort in to provide a REAL D&D experience instead of subjecting them to modules.

It's the same way I'd feel if one of my friends came up to me and said "Hey, which would you rather read, A Game of Thrones or a novel I wrote myself?" I'll take a story written by a professional writer over one written by a guy who wrote a story in the spare time between work and watching Arrow that evening.

When people run around saying "I can't believe you are subjecting your players to professionally written adventures when you should be providing top notch stories like the ones I write!" I can't help but feel frustrated. Especially when my original question that created this thread was "How much should the game be about the player and how much should it be about the character?" and the answer I got back was mostly "Yeah, your problem is that you're running modules. They aren't real D&D anyways."

As for your statement. The reason you should be fully engaged is that you are enjoying the story, you are thankful that someone else is doing the DMing so that you have a chance to play and you want to play D&D and someone else is nice enough to volunteer to give you that opportunity.

I could not imagine ever looking on a DM with enough disdain that you'd treat them like they were replaceable. Even if EVERYONE in the group wanted to DM. You give them respect because they were the one that had to put in the extra effort to write an adventure or prepare an adventure they bought in order to provide you with an experience.
 

None of them really want to DM because they want a more passive experience. They want someone to tell them a story that they get to interact with. It's my job to provide that story. I'm bad at providing stories, so I look to other people who write better than I do to write them for me. Thus, I buy adventures.
there is nothing wrong with using mods, but in general I work better when I can make up (read totally steal from TV shows, comics, novel and movies) my own stories.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be fully engaged simply because it is a module.
well that whole lack of customization to the player background. It's also harder to run with curve balls.

I really am confused by this attitude that a module is something to look down upon and show derision towards. For me, it's almost always the opposite.
I have had a love hat relationship with them to be honest...

Most of the DMs I've played under that have attempted to write their own stories end up writing contrived crap that they think is a masterpiece. They'll run around telling anyone who will listen about how great a DM they are and how their players are lucky that they put the extra effort in to provide a REAL D&D experience instead of subjecting them to modules.
I wouldn't say "real D&D" but in general I think when the whole group works on making a world and adventure is better then not...


When people run around saying "I can't believe you are subjecting your players to professionally written adventures when you should be providing top notch stories like the ones I write!" I can't help but feel frustrated. Especially when my original question that created this thread was "How much should the game be about the player and how much should it be about the character?" and the answer I got back was mostly "Yeah, your problem is that you're running modules. They aren't real D&D anyways."

not true...the issue is that you have a very aggressive stance... in fact if anyone is doing 1 true wayism, it might be the person saying that all of his players hate DMing, and only put forward arguments in bad faith to increase there power, and that there players can't work togather out of game or ave there backgrounds matter...

As for your statement. The reason you should be fully engaged is that you are enjoying the story, you are thankful that someone else is doing the DMing so that you have a chance to play and you want to play D&D and someone else is nice enough to volunteer to give you that opportunity.
I'm sorry but no. I'm grateful for someone trying, but if they fail I am not playing...

If today Ross said he was running a game it would be very different then if Matt does...


I could not imagine ever looking on a DM with enough disdain that you'd treat them like they were replaceable.
I can't imagine that just because someone says they will DM means that I should except anything they put forward...


You give them respect because they were the one that had to put in the extra effort to write an adventure or prepare an adventure they bought in order to provide you with an experience.
I give respect if you do a good job... if you suck at running games or I'm not having fun, sorry no respect...
 

Imaro

Legend
Dude, relax. I've played with hundreds of players over the years, so it's not like I'm the only one making assumptions.

I'm sorry but the idea that I should be fully engaged just because you happened to buy a module this week is totally foreign to my experience.

The fact that you are the only one willing to step up to the DM plate says volumes about your players. For me, there's a constant tension that if I'm not bringing the A game, there's five other people more than willing to step up.

Yeah but I hardly think having an entire group of people who are willing to DM is typical... I think the majority of groups have way more people willing to play than to DM and this is kind of borne out by the difference in market size for player products vs. DM products. If anything your setup is the rarity here.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The fact that you are the only one willing to step up to the DM plate says volumes about your players.

No, it doesn't. What it says is limited to, "They don't want to run games." That's it.

Anything else is you reading character traits into it. And since I am pretty sure you'd not like people making presumptions about you, you should probably not do it to others, even if they aren't personally present, hm?
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
None of them really want to DM because they want a more passive experience. They want someone to tell them a story that they get to interact with. It's my job to provide that story. I'm bad at providing stories, so I look to other people who write better than I do to write them for me. Thus, I buy adventures.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be fully engaged simply because it is a module. I really am confused by this attitude that a module is something to look down upon and show derision towards. For me, it's almost always the opposite. Most of the DMs I've played under that have attempted to write their own stories end up writing contrived crap that they think is a masterpiece. They'll run around telling anyone who will listen about how great a DM they are and how their players are lucky that they put the extra effort in to provide a REAL D&D experience instead of subjecting them to modules.

It's the same way I'd feel if one of my friends came up to me and said "Hey, which would you rather read, A Game of Thrones or a novel I wrote myself?" I'll take a story written by a professional writer over one written by a guy who wrote a story in the spare time between work and watching Arrow that evening.

When people run around saying "I can't believe you are subjecting your players to professionally written adventures when you should be providing top notch stories like the ones I write!" I can't help but feel frustrated. Especially when my original question that created this thread was "How much should the game be about the player and how much should it be about the character?" and the answer I got back was mostly "Yeah, your problem is that you're running modules. They aren't real D&D anyways."...

I have no problem with a DM running modules.

What I have a big problem with is the large number of DMs who think running modules means they have to do less work.

No matter how good a module is, unless the DM can convey that brilliance to his players, it's all wasted. And conveying the module properly takes spots serious effort!
A DM should know the module forward, backward and sideways. Otherwise they almost uniformly come off as "go to place X and kill monster Y, go to next place kill monster Z."

Not taking the effort to make the module shine is why I think so many players come out with bad views of modules.
 

Hussar

Legend
Hey, I love modules. Both running and playing. Ran The World's Largest Dungeon and Savage Tide AP in recent years. So, no problems with modules here.

But, the idea that just because you are running a game means that you can't be replaced is, again, foreign to my experience. I've never played in groups with only one DM. Ever. Always at least two and usually more.

To me, and certainly including me, the DM is always replaceable.
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
The fact that you are the only one willing to step up to the DM plate says volumes about your players.
I'm honestly not sure what you're implying here (and I'm not being contrary). My players never try to run a game for several reasons:

(1) They never have (for some of them).
(2) They all (without exception) claim I'm the best GM they've ever played under. System hasn't mattered.
(3) They enjoy playing more than GMing (for those who have GMed).

What do you think it says? That they're not GMs? I'm honestly a little lost, because you made it seem like a bad thing (I think?).
 

Hussar

Legend
A bit different JamesC. You have players who have DM'd in the past. It gives them a very different perspective.

So, your group includes at least two people with dming experience.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top