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

[Celebrim]

I'm not going to comment much about this topic because invariably this devolves into two sides pretending the other side has an extreme position.

I am going to say that there is no historical evidence that background details and boxed text running over two sentences is inherently bad. Just as one of many examples, the most popular module of all time - I6 Ravenloft - has a significant amount of background information about the villain and about certain magic items which could be removed from the module. And while its boxed text tends to be pithy, if it breaks the two sentence rule, I don't recall anyone complaining.

In short, there is nothing inherently unskillful or boring in having NPC's, items, and settings with detailed histories. What is perhaps unskillful is forcing more of this information on the players than they want, but it is equally unskillful in my opinion not to be able to provide this information when the players want it. And, I think if you've done your job in making the adventure(s) engrossing, then the players are going to want those details.

 

[DragonLancer]

Why do you consider that to be unfortunate? I'm not being snide here, I'm really curious.

I think it's unfortunate because a richer play experience can often arise if players are willing to "buy in" to the setting. For some rpg's it's a given that the players have to know a minimum about the world to even to make up a character. I enjoy this and have found it ususally results in my players being more proactive because they took the time to understand how the world works and connects, thus the characters they create often have logical connections and goals in the world.

Exactly. I say unfortunate because theres a lot to be said for a detailed setting. Just look at Middle Earth, it's the setting that makes the story. Forgotten Realms and Eberron have the feel they have because of the setting information.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You know I was thinking...without the PC's backstory, world history information, description, basically the campaign world...then why play D&D instead of say Descent? What's the advantage?

This reductio ad absurdum tactic doesn't work so well because a lot of people are actually arguing that the DM *can* introduce the history and background that he has fun creating. Indeed, I'd say that if the DM has fun with that, he *should* introduce it, even reward players who pursue it. However, the DM in the letter had a problem where his players were totally ignoring what he had such pride in creating, and in order to fix this dilemma, the advice was to (1) don't be so touchy about your game material, and (2) make the material you want them to pay attention to relevant to their characters.

And then there was this outcry of player entitlement and mollycoddling whiners, and the point that the DM shouldn't have to put away his enjoyment of the game just so that his players can be happy, because the game is about EVERYONE's enjoyment.

So the answer given in the article isn't "Go play something you'll have more fun with, since D&D is a game of history and backstory and novel writing!" It's "To get players to pay attention, make the material relevant, and don't cry about your 'art' when they ignore it anyway."

If they adventure in FR, they might care about the Red Wizards, because they can get magic items from them. If they adventure in Eberron, they might care about the history of the warforged if a character or two plays one. Why? Because it's relevant.

Why did they interrupt his exposition? Probably because they knew it wouldn't matter in 5 minutes when he was done with it. Because they sure shut up and paid attention when the powers were being listed!

Just look at Middle Earth, it's the setting that makes the story. Forgotten Realms and Eberron have the feel they have because of the setting information.

For some people (like me, especially in middle school), the setting of Middle Earth is boring, dry, academic, and superfluous. And FR and Eberron have a feel that influences the actual adventure design (what the players are doing depends upon the setting: in FR, they're exploring ruins and dealing with Harpers. In Eberron, they're riding the lightning rail and bringing hope to the Mournland), so a lot of that is automatically relevant.

For instance, take Middle Earth.

Now strip out 100% of everything that doesn't involve, directly, Frodo, Sam, Gollum, and the One Ring making it to Mount Doom.

And you are left with what is relevant.

Not everyone has the patience or the inclination to enjoy setting porn, not everyone would read a snippet of world history just because it was available, not everyone is that much of a world-building nerd. In fact, most people aren't (though D&D probably attracts a big percentage of those who are). Some are and they have great fun with it, and that's cool. But it really sounds like these players aren't into it. Perhaps, as the article suggests, they're more into character porn, marveling over high stats and great items and how many giants they could slay (like a lot of middle schoolers I know).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Yeah, that's the thing. Which is easier, to change your behaviour or to change what your players enjoy? It's not a matter of who's in the right, it's a matter of being practical.

So, if you were living with a group of people who you did not enjoy at all, would you change your behavior, try to change them, or, if it just so happened that there was no lease and you could move at will, change which people you were living with?

It is NOT easier to change yourself to fit in with a group. It is frustrating and ulimately hopeless. If it's a matter of being practical the answer is simple. Say "I'm obviously not the right DM for you guys, hopefully one of you can pick up the slack while I look for a group that fits my style better."

Just because the title of the page is "Save my game" doesn't mean that the answer needs to be "crush your own spirit in order to continue serving this particular group." The Kid's game cannot be saved. There is too much of a mismatch in player/DM style. Advocating that a group limp along with an unhappy DM ignoring his fun in order to tailor everything to player style is horrible advice, and I can only hope this kid is smart enough to ignore it.

It's pretty obvious from even a casual perusal of this site that there are a lot of different, mutually exclusive playstyles out there. There are many perfectly pleasant, techinically competent DMs and players posting here who I would sit at home playing minesweeper every night of the week before I would play in a group with. It's very sad to me that a kid just starting out and making a real effort in DMing is basicly told to adopt a different playstyle (or by implication and more likely the long term effect, give up DMing.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just because the title of the page is "Save my game" doesn't mean that the answer needs to be "crush your own spirit in order to continue serving this particular group." The Kid's game cannot be saved. There is too much of a mismatch in player/DM style. Advocating that a group limp along with an unhappy DM ignoring his fun in order to tailor everything to player style is horrible advice, and I can only hope this kid is smart enough to ignore it.

This is why I don't particularly like the article. It reads very harshly on the DM and seems like its telling him to completely change his style to match the players. That's why I say its bad advice. But, there is a lot of good advice, I think, in this thread that can show a compromise, a way for the DM to create an interesting history and back story that the players will enjoy, the DM will have fun creating, and will lead to more interesting play experiences for all.

I do not think the DM in the article is presented as a very good DM. There are a few warning lights that go off in the write-in. I do, however, think that with a bit of work, he could be, and I don't think that the game is anywhere near unsalvageable. Now, if the DM starts giving interesting back story in an interactive manner and the players still don't bite, then yes, there is a bigger problem. But, that has not been established as being true.

 

[Midknightsun]

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.

QFELT

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Just as one of many examples, the most popular module of all time - I6 Ravenloft - has a significant amount of background information about the villain and about certain magic items which could be removed from the module.

Not arguing - just using this a jumping off point.

I have not read the module myself but it strikes me that the information given would be relavent which is a big plus in having players pay attention.

Similar to someone earlier in the thread I've played the Baulder's Gate and Icewind Dale games. When I was playing the first Baulder's Gate I read the full item history for the first few magic items. When I realised that these would not give me more information that was relavent to the adventure I stopped reading them.

In the games Morrowind and Oblivion there are books/journals/messages all over the place and some can be quite long and richly detailed. I don't read the non-relavent ones but I do read through the ones that are at least seemingly relavent to the quest I am workig on.

I am not a "Fight More Orcs Now!!!!" player though I do like the good fight scene. All of those Robin's Laws on line test place me as Story Teller style. I paid attention when our DM was doing a "Infiltrated Government" type storyline and even pieced everything together faster than the DM expected. Why? There are many reasons but part of it was that everything (even the red herrings he dropped in) were relavent to the story so I paid attention and picked up enough to figure out what was relvant, what was not relavent and what evidence there was to prove who was lying and why.

The trick to me seems to be balance the "extra" information. Go ahead and name the magic item when it gets identified. If the players bite they bite. If they don't you can hope someone remembers the name when a patron at the tavern mentions "the barabarians looking for some sword named X". The players will definately perk up when a barabrian shows up and recognises the sword.

I think a mystery or a noir is quite possable in the "relavant only" style of play. For every one or two relavent pieces of information give one or two pieces that are not. Just be sure to have the payoff of a piece of info occurs with some regularity.

If you have the story advance on a "regular basis" (however long that is with your particular group) the players will likely eat up everything you throw at them because it is relavent and pay off quickly. Once they know this is the case they (hopefully) will pay attention even with the details that aren't relavent and the feeling of the mystery will come together and the players will start putting things together for you.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's very sad to me that a kid just starting out and making a real effort in DMing is basicly told to adopt a different playstyle (or by implication and more likely the long term effect, give up DMing.)

Isn't that a common divide between players and GMs? Players tend to be more interested in the challenge part of the game, succeeding and growing in power. Whereas GMs are most interested in presenting a world or telling a story.

To use Forge terminology, the players are more interested in gamist play, whereas GMs are more into simulationist/narrativist.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think there are a lot of extemes being thrown about in here. From players entitlement issues and DM's right to have fun.

I feel that for a game to be fun for me as both a player and DM I want some background. I am the type of player who will ask questions about the world. I have been told by my DMs that my questions often make them think about aspects of their worlds that they had not given much thought to and they enjoy the chance to see their world grow because of my interest.

As a DM I develop the backstory of my world I do homebrews now I don't expect most of the players to want and sit and listen to me drone on and on and on about it. But if I do tell them something they need to listen becuase it is important if I go on about the history of a weapon it is because the infomarion I am giving them is important to the game it has clues in it.

For players who I know are like me and want more I will prepare hand out sheets with more infomation and they always read them.

I have some players who not so much into the history of the world but they don't stop the other players who are from asking questions or interrupt me when I am giving out the information.

I won't play with a DM who fels that the history of hos world is not important or feels that he does not have to do anymore work then monster encounters and what loot to give because I would be bored to tears.

As a DM I would not have any fun if all my players only cared about fighting monsters , leveling and getting cool items.

The game is about having fun for everyone no one should have to change how they play or run just to please the group. If it is not a good fit it is better to realize it and find another group.

 

[Elf Witch]

Isn't that a common divide between players and GMs? Players tend to be more interested in the challenge part of the game, succeeding and growing in power. Whereas GMs are most interested in presenting a world or telling a story.

To use Forge terminology, the players are more interested in gamist play, whereas GMs are more into simulationist/narrativist.

I don't think this is true I think you are painting to broad a stroke. I have played with a lot of players who are more into simulationist/narrativist and I have also seen a lot of DMs who are more into gamist style of play.