DM fun vs. Player fun...Should it be a compromise?

[Raven Crowking]

I have to disagree. The original statement in the article (as I read it, anyway) and many of the examples here (which are arguably strawmen, of course) assume exposition that is inherently unknowable by the PCs. I think that's an issue that hasn't been well explored either in this thread or in the article. I also think it's a pervasive problem among a certain sort of GM (which might include me, though I try to avoid that pitfall).

Well, then, for the record, I agree with the general idea that information unavailable to the PCs should not appear in great lumps (and, in most cases, otherwise) to the players. I honestly didn't think that there was any controversy about that, but perhaps I am not reading carefully enough.

(Logically unsupportable, of course, but funny nonetheless.)

I thought so.

As you might have gathered, I disagree. (I suppose that makes me an unreasonable person, but there you go.) I think it was fairly decent advice for a naive audience, subject to substantial modification with increasing experience. Given the demographics at their site and the limitations on the time of the writer, that seems appropriate to me.

Well, we all read with a "reader filter" that says, in effect, "If *I* wrote that, this is what *I* would mean, therefore this must be similar to what the author meant". The reader filter, from time to time, confounds us all.

Let us simply agree to disagree on this particular point?


RC

 

[Doug Sundseth]

Well, we all read with a "reader filter" that says, in effect, "If *I* wrote that, this is what *I* would mean, therefore this must be similar to what the author meant". The reader filter, from time to time, confounds us all.

Let us simply agree to disagree on this particular point?

I can't argue with any of that, since it clearly supports the idea that I must be a really nice guy. (Or perhaps that I come across like a jerk without intending to -- nah.)

Seriously, there's nearly always more than one way to read any significant text. All too often, there's more than one reasonable way to read said text. I think that's the case here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seriously, there's nearly always more than one way to read any significant text. All too often, there's more than one reasonable way to read said text. I think that's the case here.

No doubt.

I honestly only used the word (Hell, when you have some of the people who've agreed with me on this thread agreeing with me, you know that there is no possibility of sqeezing out a single iota of reasonable conflict!) because I was afraid that it would seem that I was implying that the people who normally disagree with me (but agreed with me in this case) are normally unreasonable and jumped on any possible conflict at all.

RC

 

[tzor]

As I see it, there are really three things involved here.

A good DM needs to make a good back history. In all fairness it’s not for the players, it’s for the DM. Players might not need to know the history of the world in great detail (quick who was vice president under George Washington and what political party did he belong to) but they will start to notice inconsistencies in your campaign world.

Having that history can be a two edged sword for the DM. Having all this stuff is annoying if you can’t share it. But players are not geese and this isn’t foie gras, you can’t force feed your players all that information. You can present it, either as a banquet or as a series of simple meals, but always as a buffet line … the players must take the initiative and want to know. (Of course it is fair game to dangle bait in front of them in the hopes they will go for it … then you’ve got them hook line and sinker.)

Last and never least, a role playing game session is a lot like a marriage (only without the death ‘til we part bit). Never assume you can change someone. Players can’t assume that they can change the DM and the DM can’t assume that they can change their players. It might happen, but you can’t assume that.

Everyone is entitled to fun. No one is entitled to having everything their way. It’s a collective effort on the part of everyone and compromise is often needed to achieve that.