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

[pogre]

This would be why I advocate so strongly an "adventure first" approach to campaign building. The players, by and large, don't care all that much about the world beyond what directly (or at least indirectly) affects them, so why bother building it?

Man, I totally am on board with this line of thought. I create only what I need to create in my campaign world to accomodate adventures. I write it down - I stay consistent, but I only create what is absolutely necessary.

I'm blessed with a group of players who actually do want a bit more campaign background than the average and I actively solicit their input on creating the world. It creates a better buy-in and a lot less frustration for being unappreciated.

 

[wedgeski]

I enjoy the 'Save My Game!' articles. I think D&D'ers need this kind of no-nonsense commentary from an official source, whether your average player would agree with it or not.

I'm a DM who gets the most enjoyment out of my players' enjoyment. I get really excited by encounters that I *know* they're going to enjoy because it plays to their strengths as roleplayers or combateers. I know they hate exposition so I always have to find interesting ways to get it into the game... and it almost always has to be interactive in some way. Handouts pretty much go to waste. Boxed text is an absolute no-no. I've gamed with them for 20 years. I know what they like and I try to aim the game straight at them. I don't feel any of the kind of entitlement that the DM who wrote in seems to.

And as a player, I don't spare 2 seconds thinking about the DM's fun unless it's obvious he's getting annoyed or bored, then I will try and fix it somehow. But most of the time playing is a purely selfish act.

So from both sides, I find player fun completely supercedes DM fun. Therefore I can't really disagree with the article's message.

 

[Numion]

Yes, there needs to be give and take, but, that applies to both sides of the screen. If a DM told me that I have to listen to 100 pages of history about his imaginary world, I'd be out the door in an instant. Sorry, but you aren't Terry Pratchett and I'm pretty darn sure that your prose isn't that good. It just might be, but, I'll take the chance.

In more generic terms most DMs aren't great DMs. A bit like driving a car: everyone thinks they're better than the average driver, but actually aren't. (So, it's a good thing that D&D can be great fun even with a below average DM.)

And that's so true what you said about the prose. Anyone striving to be a good DM should think really hard before assigning blame for player disinterest on backstory on the players, instead of the quality of the backstory. Now, the example in the article had the players shouting gimme before the backstory could be heard; maybe they had heard the previous 'quality' backstories and made the decision based on that, or maybe they had old-school dibs rules (fastest gets it) or maybe they've just need to work on table manners. Who knows.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'm a DM who gets the most enjoyment out of my players' enjoyment.
...
And as a player, I don't spare 2 seconds thinking about the DM's fun unless it's obvious he's getting annoyed or bored, then I will try and fix it somehow. But most of the time playing is a purely selfish act.
...
So from both sides, I find player fun completely supercedes DM fun. Therefore I can't really disagree with the article's message.

Nope, you don't. You're simply a DM who gets the most fun out of his work when he can provide his players with exactly what they have fun with. Entirely different thing. I bet (and I'm pretty sure about that, since you're only human, too), if you regularly didn't have fun being the DM because of player behaviour, you'd feel frustrated just as much.

But you know...since the DM is just a player with a different hat on, why the hell should he care for the enjoyment of the players more than they care for his? If I have a player (or a group of them) who simply stomp all over my work, planned adventures, campaign setting, etc with characters that are played ignorant and uninterested as long as it isn't immediately pertinent to their enjoyment...why should I as DM take great pains to not stomp all over their character planning with my adventures and NPCs? Sure, both are extremes...but so is the mindset that playing is a "selfish" act. Nobody plays in a vacuum, not the DM nor the players. Those who think they do can easily ruin the game for all others. The last selfish player I had in a group was, after a dozen or more game evenings, voted out of the group by all others, me included. And the last selfish DM didn't have much of a game going after a while.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Glyfair]

Anyone striving to be a good DM should think really hard before assigning blame for player disinterest on backstory on the players, instead of the quality of the backstory

I believe that the problem is more often with the delivery of the backstory, rather than the actual backstory. Players don't expect Shakespeare, but they expect not to be bored while being given the information.

I won't guess how often the problem is general player disinterest. I will say that if the player's aren't interested in backstory and you insist on force feeding them one that the issue is you. If they aren't interested either keep any such elements to a minimum or else stop DMing. It's like forcing to group to learn the nuances of football when they showed up to play baseball.

 

[green slime]

Nein! Nicht "Compromising"! Verboten!!

DM's unite against these bolshievistic socialist surgings of perfidious players!

We cannot allow our beloved hobby to be overrun by evil, conniving players who claim to be seeking this illusory "fun"!

Any player attmepting to drag "fun" into my game will be shot dead, flayed with piano wire, banned, innandated in mountain dew, and tried for treason. In that order.

 

[Shadeydm]

The players, by and large, don't care all that much about the world beyond what directly (or at least indirectly) affects them, so why bother building it?

By that line of thought why even bother buying it? Why bother publishing it by that logic who needs Eberron, the Realms or DL after all the players don't care and don't want to hear about at all right?

Not buying this line of reasoning nor do I tolerate the overinflated sense of entitlement and self importance which seems to be on the rise in recient years and which was clearly encouraged in the article mentioned.

So I guess to better mollycoddle these kinds of players there should be no setting, no background, no backstory, no history, just hey look a dungeon lets go loot some treasure. Towns don't need names NPC can be named Barney and Chad because nothing matters as long as the players are happy right? What's the name of the Tavern in town? lets just call it the tavern because it doesn't matter. Thank god I don't game with these kind of players!

 

[wedgeski]

Nope, you don't. You're simply a DM who gets the most fun out of his work when he can provide his players with exactly what they have fun with. Entirely different thing. I bet (and I'm pretty sure about that, since you're only human, too), if you regularly didn't have fun being the DM because of player behaviour, you'd feel frustrated just as much.

Frankly, I'd quickly learn not to waste my time. The solution is not to change your players but to change your game. Again, I seem to be reflexively echoing the article here.

I know a couple of DM's who get a massive kick from world-building (I'm not really one of them, beyond building the detail necessary for a good metaplot, which probably explains my position in this debate), and their folders and folders of detail are a joy to look at. But if that isn't enough for them, if they have to see their players buy-in to their world-building and if not they get frustrated and unhappy... well, there's something wrong there. The world-builders I know get most pleasure from the journey *towards* the table... at the table, the players become king.

To be honest I didn't really know I felt this way until engaging in this discussion.

 

[Numion]

By that line of thought why even bother buying it? Why bother publishing it by that logic who needs Eberron, the Realms or DL after all the players don't care and don't want to hear about at all right?

Not buying this line of reasoning nor do I tolerate the overinflated sense of entitlement and self importance which seems to be on the rise in recient years and which was clearly encouraged in the article mentioned.

So I guess to better mollycoddle these kinds of players there should be no setting, no background, no backstory, no history, just hey look a dungeon lets go loot some treasure. Towns don't need names NPC can be named Barney and Chad because nothing matters as long as the players are happy right? What's the name of the Tavern in town? lets just call it the tavern because it doesn't matter. Thank god I don't game with these kind of players!

Strawman much?

Hussar was just saying that a player might not be interested in campaign world beyond what his character experiences. You somehow go off on a tangent that then the player wouldn't care about anything. Nobody was arguing that.

As for Eberron and FR, well, the thing with published worlds is that they aim for greater audience. The purpose isn't to use everything from the worlds at once. Unless the campaign is really long, it probably won't span the whole of FR. The choice is still there, though, the DM can choose which locations and elements of the setting to use.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So I guess to better mollycoddle these kinds of players there should be no setting, no background, no backstory, no history, just hey look a dungeon lets go loot some treasure. Towns don't need names NPC can be named Barney and Chad because nothing matters as long as the players are happy right? What's the name of the Tavern in town? lets just call it the tavern because it doesn't matter. Thank god I don't game with these kind of players!

I dunno, they sound like undemanding 'low maintenance' types that would make DMing a pretty easy job. Not the sort that require novel plots and lengthy backstories. Just give 'em three orcs in a room and they'll be happy. Otoh they'd probably annoy me by laughing at Jackass before smacking empty beer cans into their heads.