DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[Mallus]

Actually, his campaign world sounds like it would be much more interesting and enjoyable than any one that would be run the way you have suggested.

That's because you seem to enjoy punishing players and their characters.

The game is run for the enjoyment of the players and the DM.

This is true.

In many ways most importantly the DM.

This is not.

I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so.

The DM must derive enjoyment from the game too, and those simulation aspects may very well do that.

Right, but if those simulation aspects result in a game that the players don't enjoy, we're back to the DM simply pleasuring himself, at which point the group should probably stop playing and go out for a few pints, or that the very least, the DM should go somewhere private.

At no point did I suggest that the DM's enjoyment didn't matter. What I did suggest was 1) that a DM should end a campaign if they no longer enjoy running it, openly and honestly, rather than use unfairly deployed in-game instruments to punish they players perceived transgressions and that 2) once DM begins running a setting it should be viewed a tool for entertaining the players, and not some artistic creation or worse, a statistical model that has value apart from entertaining the players.

Your posts make me think you have never acted as a DM for any length of time.

And you'd be wrong. I primarily DM. For the 23 years I've DM'ed lovingly-detailed homebrew settings, so trust me when I say I know something about DM masturbation.

(My current campaign turns four this year. The Story Hour based on it, which really needs to be updated sometime soon, Rolzup!!), is in my .sig. Check it out if you'd interested in seeing some of my ideas on gaming in action. At the very least, it's well-written and funny).

 

[Mallus]

Any simulation aspects of the game is to entertain me, the DM.

And if this isn't being enjoyed by the players, then what? I thought my suggestion to go for drinks was rather canny.

If I have to suffer through your false dichotomy

I'm stating a particular DM stance. I run games to entertain other people. Of course I include material that's of particular, or even exclusive interest to me --like the recent batch of T.S. Eliot parodies that I've interjected into live play-- but I'm well aware of that being a fundamentally masturbatory act.

I'm not a charity.

The question is: are you a good host?

I play this game for my fun

If you are unconcerned --or even not primarily concerned-- with the other people enjoyment, then why DM? I'm asking this as seriously and as snark-free as I can. I'm honestly curious.

The correct answer is - it has to entertain everyone adequately enough... the DM included.]

And I see the DM in the role of party host, whose enjoyment is pegged to the enjoyment of the guests.

 

[Elf Witch]

I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so.

That is a very good comparison. I love to host parties. I get a thrill when my guests have a good time. I try and make my guests comfortable make sure there is food and drink that they like.

When I DM I try and do the same I want my players to have a good time.

But I don't think I would enjoy hosting so much if my guests trashed my home. Or if I had made a wonderful dinner and they decided they would rather order pizza instead. There is a certain standard of mannera expected of guests.

The same goes with players. As I said before if you know your DM likes to run games a certain way you have two choices one don't play if it is not in the style you like go out and find a DM whose taste is more to your liking or two go along with the DM. I can't get over the entitlement issues a lot of players seem to have these days. That the game revolves around them and the DM is a glorified servent.

If my players said to me we want less role playing and no consquences to our actions and make the game more hack n slash then I would have to say sorry that is not fun for me and I would not enjoy it and I don't think you would enjoy having me run a game I was not having fun in.

As a player I have left games that were not to my taste I never expected the DM to change the game.

 

[Storm Raven]

That's because you seem to enjoy punishing players and their characters.

No, I actually enjoy rewarding the players and their characters. However, if no choice leads to problems (potentially insurmountable problems even), then you aren't actually rewarding them when they are given good stuff, you are merely handing out goodies for nothing. To be meaningful, character choices must potentially have negative consequences, and even potentially fatal consequences.

I like to compare DM'ing to hosting a party, as both require a certain generosity of spirit (not to mention spirits, in the case of the party). The DM, like the party host, does most of the work, but it's primarily for the benefit of others. A good host thinks of his guests first and foremost, they derive they're enjoyment from their guests enjoyment. Put another way, a selfish host is an unsuccessful host. I realize that not everyone enjoys hosting parties, or at least certain kinds of parties, which means they should refrain from doing so.

This is wrong. Yes, the DM could be analogized as the host, but it is not primarily for the benefit of others. Not even the host of a party works primarily for the benefit of others - if they did not derive enjoyment from it, they would simply not host. And therefore, there wouldn't be a party. The DM is in a similar position: no DM, no game. No player, game probably continues.

The players are always less important in the overall scheme of things than the DM.

Right, but if those simulation aspects result in a game that the players don't enjoy, we're back to the DM simply pleasuring himself, at which point the group should probably stop playing and go out for a few pints, or that the very least, the DM should go somewhere private.

Why? Your whole line of argument seems to be that the players should do this sort of thing all the time. And be rewarded for it, and never suffer negative or deadly consequences as a result. Why should the DM have to go with the flow when a player or players want to do this, but if he tries to mold the game (which is under his direction to begin with, and absolutely requires his involvement to continue) into something he will enjoy, this is somewho illegitimate?

At no point did I suggest that the DM's enjoyment didn't matter. What I did suggest was 1) that a DM should end a campaign if they no longer enjoy running it, openly and honestly, rather than use unfairly deployed in-game instruments to punish they players perceived transgressions and that 2) once DM begins running a setting it should be viewed a tool for entertaining the players, and not some artistic creation or worse, a statistical model that has value apart from entertaining the players.

Except, of course, that the entire history of the FRPG says you are wrong. Most campaign settings are mostly artistic creations and have a life other than entertaining the players. They entertain the DM and/or (if they are seperate people) the creator primarily.

And you'd be wrong. I primarily DM. For the 23 years I've DM'ed lovingly-detailed homebrew settings, so trust me when I say I know something about DM masturbation.

I find this very hard to believe.

 

[Mallus]

That is a very good comparison.

Thanks.

I get a thrill when my guests have a good time.

Me too.

But I don't think I would enjoy hosting so much if my guests trashed my home.

I have trouble seeing the destruction of actual property as analogous to the vandalism of a virtual space. You can't really trash an idea. Or you can, but it's incredibly easy to restore to pristine condition.

Or if I had made a wonderful dinner and they decided they would rather order pizza instead.

Wonderful in whose eyes?

There is a certain standard of manners expected of guests.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that a host is well-advised to ignore their guests preferences.

If my players said to me we want less role playing and no consquences to our actions and make the game more hack n slash then I would have to say sorry that is not fun for me and I would not enjoy it and I don't think you would enjoy having me run a game I was not having fun in.

And that's perfectly fine (note my advice in this case is shelve the game and go to a pub). What I've arguing against, well, perhaps 'railing' is more accurate, is the rather duplicitous notion that the DM should *keep* running a campaign they don't enjoy and use in-game actors --otherwise known as NPC's they can't possibly defeat-- in order to teach the players the error of their playstyle preferences. This strikes me as DM'ing under false pretenses.

 

[Mallus]

I actually enjoy rewarding the players and their characters.

For playing the game your way.

- if they did not derive enjoyment from it, they would simply not host.

Which is why I wrote "(hosts) derive their enjoyment from their guest's enjoyment". Except I originally wrote it with an embarrassing "their/they're" goof.

The players are always less important in the overall scheme of things than the DM.

I (politely) disagree.

Why should the DM have to go with the flow when a player or players want to do this

Because if the players reach a consensus then the DM is outnumbered. At that point the DM needs to resign with no hard feelings or get with the program.

If your dinner guests inform you they don't like fish, you either have to stop hosting dinner parties or stop serving fish. Continuing to serve seafood mains would be pointless, no matter how much you personally like fish.

Except, of course, that the entire history of the FRPG says you are wrong.

O Rly?

They entertain the DM and/or (if they are separate people) the creator primarily.

Prove it. I dare you.

I find this very hard to believe.

SR, my campaign's got a Story Hour on this board with over 16,000 page views, not to mention gets mentioned in various threads, seeing as I DM IRL for several ENWorlders, including a one high-volume poster. So the proof's there, if you care to read it. Or you can continue believing whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary.

And, BTW, I know masturbation!!!111!

 

[Arnwyn]

And if this isn't being enjoyed by the players, then what? I thought my suggestion to go for drinks was rather canny.

It was. (And which is why I suggested golf!)

Of course, we've seen no evidence in the OP that doing x won't be enjoyed by the OPer's players.

If you are unconcerned --or even not primarily concerned-- with the other people enjoyment, then why DM? I'm asking this as seriously and as snark-free as I can. I'm honestly curious.

Beats me. I'm not the one that came up with the aforementioned false dichotomy (that I played along with). You came up with it, so I'll let you work on figuring it out.

I gave the correct answer quite clearly in my previous post.

(We may be taling about the same general thing, but you just probably need to articulate better.)

 

[Mallus]

It was. (And which is why I suggested golf!)

Golf works too.

Of course, we've seen no evidence in the OP that doing x won't be enjoyed by the OPer's players.

True, but most of my responses were aimed at posters who advised things like "attack the party with NPC's twice their level" and "torment the paladin's soul in Hell for all eternity", things which probably wouldn't be enjoyed by anyone outside the odd sadomasochist.

(We may be taling about the same general thing, but you just probably need to articulate better.)

I'm getting a lot of practice articulating in this thread.

 

[Storm Raven]

For playing the game your way.

And? Someone has to come up with what the responses of a game world will be. If no choice has any impact, then you aren't actually DMing a game, then you are really involved in public masturbation.

Which is why I wrote "(hosts) derive their enjoyment from their guest's enjoyment". Except I originally wrote it with an embarrassing "their/they're" goof.

No. They can (and do) also derive enjoyment from the party itself. If they don't, and only derive vicarious enjoyment through their guests supposed enjoyment, then they usually end up not enjoying themselves much.

Because if the players reach a consensus then the DM is outnumbered. At that point the DM needs to resign with no hard feelings or get with the program.

In other words, the DM should run the game the players want regardless of his or her own desires. That's simply ridiculous.

If your dinner guests inform you they don't like fish, you either have to stop hosting dinner parties or stop serving fish. Continuing to serve seafood mains would be pointless, no matter how much you personally like fish.

No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it. You can always find other guests who do like fish.

Prove it. I dare you.

Easily. Go open up the covers of pretty much any published setting. How long will it take you to find something of no actual value to the players that exists merely as an artistic addition? Something that is purely "masturbatory" to use your phrasing? Six seconds? Less?

Perhaps you should look at the actual text of the 1e DMG concerning alignments too. Or the text of any game that includes things like flaws or drawbacks concerning how to penalize players for having such attributes. The history of FRPGs (actually, RPGs, not just FRPGs) is all about imposing some form of DM fiat over players - in the sense that the DM decides what sort of campaign is being run, not the players.

The problem you are having seems to stem from the notion that any kind of penalty for the players is either inherently wrong, or must be somehow scaled to their current power level. Basically, you seem to be arguing that no matter what the PCs do, the response will be "level appropriate", because to do otherwise you are "imposing" on the players somehow.

I counter by saying this: by reacting in such a manner, you are not imposing on the players. You are actually freeing them. if their choices only result in level appropriate responses, then they don't actually have meaningful choices. They are on a set of railroad tracks of your making, and they will end up at "win-town" (so to speak) right on schedule, no matter what they do. On the other hand, if their choices have meaning, if the campaign world reacts to them in a consistent and reasonable manner, then their choices could easily get them killed. As a result, they have actual choices, not the false choices you seem to want to stick them with.

SR, my campaign's got a Story Hour on this board with over 16,000 page views, not to mention gets mentioned in various threads, seeing as I DM IRL for several ENWorlders, including a one high-volume poster. So the proof's there, if you care to read it. Or you can continue believing whatever you want despite evidence to the contrary.

Given your posts here, I'm inclined to think your alleged story hour is just an elaborate hoax.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

No. Keep serving fish. If the guests don't like fish, that's their problem. If they want something else, they can cook dinner and eat at home, if they can get off their lazy hind ends and do it.

Why do you presume the guests are lazy? Do you presume your players are lazy?

You can always find other guests who do like fish.

You may like fish, but that doesn't mean you get invited to my parties.