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

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Indeed, which is why defeatist "this is just what players are like, accomodate them" advice annoys the heck out of me. It's one thing to accept that this is what these players are like, but the idea that he will never get the chance to play with someone who isn't a middle schooler yelling 'gimme' is not one I would base my advice around.

 

[Imaro]

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.

What tactic...it was an explicit question in an explicit situation that I was curious about, I think you're wanting to read more into it than is there. We've already come to the conclusion that me and you see differently what the main gist of this article is. I see one, maybe two paragraphs that actually state this...and no real advice or info on how to accomplish it, so I will just leave it at that.

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.

What outcry? And yes, the game is about everyone's enjoyment. I don't play games that I don't enjoy, simple as that. I also would say that the DM does the lion's share of both designing the game, presenting it, and spending the most money on it( players only need a PHB right?). What seems absurd to me is that I should disregard my playstyle of DM'ing because I happen to have players that aren't on board with it. If anything some kind of compromise should be taking place, and that...in the end is what I'm arguing for. Compromise takes place on both ends though, and I don't see the author once address the end on the part of his players.

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."

Of course not...it's WotC's site and they sell a product, why would they promote someone else's product over there own...even if it might fit the playstyle of his particular players better. D&D is exactly what the DM makes it...so yes it can be a game that contains history, backstory, etc...as far as the "novel writing" come on...exaggerate much. I'm sorry we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my mind it is give and take...and like I cited earlier there are certain games and settings that the ability to be able to listen to info is necessary. Even Eberron(when you're playing up it's mystery/noir aspects require this)...the funny thing is if I only tell you the relevant parts...it's not a mystery anymore, I might as well just layout a flowchart for you.

IMHO it could be that this DM wants to run a specific type of game...and his players aren't on board for that. This in my mind doesn't mean he should necessarily change his playstyle, it could mean he should change players. Yet the article is very one sided in this area. It takes the side that he, as DM, must be doing something wrong. And there's just so many different ways of approaching the issue(which are hard without more info) that I think the article is more detrimental than helpful.

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.

Uhm...once again how do you know it's relevant unless you listen? The earlier "save my game" article shows that his players (except for one) generally do alot of table talk. This could be chalked up to typical middle schooler behavior(especially when dealing with a peer who is trying to assert a level of control), and it's funny that at least one player isn't bored and actually takes an interest in what he's saying to them. Maybe he just needs three more like that player instead of the others.

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!

Assume much? And once again, not all of them did. Do you feel it's right, even if it's just one player, for the other players to infringe on his fun as well because they don't find it interesting? Are the other three players now more entitled to their fun than the DM and this player?

Are you arguing that the powers of an item are the only relevant thing? Or that these players somehow new ahead of time what was relevant? I honestly get the impression that the DM wants the players to be more pro-active in exploring his world...is this a good or bad thing? It all depends on the people you play with. At least one player finds it interesting, so it can't be all bad.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Umm, recent years? Like this is something new. You do realize that the Keep on the Borderlands contains no names for any NPC's? The Keep isn't even named, nor is the land in which it rests. The idea that gamist play is something new or that players have suddenly become less interested in setting porn recently is ridiculous.

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!

So, you want to go back to playing the way it was back in the day?

However, that's a bit beyond what I was stating. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my point, perhaps I explained it badly. I never stated that no setting is needed. I stated that setting and background elements have to be made relavent if you want the players to care about them.

How about all the DM entitlement being chucked around here? It's a very bad thing that the players snore through DM's exposition, but, I'm supposed to be grateful for the DM gracing me with a couple of pages of background exposition? Gimme a break. There has to be a compromise on both sides here.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

how do you know it's relevant unless you listen?

At first you don't know so most (I believe) would listen. When that doesn't appear to be relavent some will listen to the next piece. When that doesn't seem to be relavent...

and so on and so forth...


Just like mentioned earlier in the thread (and I think Hussar was the other one) we paid attention to some fluff in the Baulder's Gate games for a bit and then proceeded to skip the rest (reading books, history of weapons, etc). It becomes a learned behavior - if it's not important then it's not important and is simply extra* information.

It takes longer to write down notes than it is to listen to the information (unless you know shorthand - which most people do not). They will likely only write down "what seems important" so they can stay on top of things. I'm horrible with character names but I know "the guy who did this" or "the queen of this area". I won't remember who the nephew of so-and-so is until they show up and do something because I won't remember them as "The Nephew of So-And-So" but as "The Guy Who Did This". Doesn't matterhow important they actually turn out to be three months from now. I'm not going to remember who they are until they show up "on screen"; and until then as far as I am concerned they are "extra". I usually have enough trouble keeping up on relevant information (though I know I am able to) that I can't keep up on Extra stuff.

You don't have to only give the immediately relevant parts. I've played in games where it worked. You just have to make the players THINK they are immediately relevant. Dole out the future hooks in small chuncks. Give an immediate and a future piece at the same time. Give an immediate and an "extra" piece at the same time. When the players figure out that the conversations/descriptions/characters may actually by important, and important RIGHT NOW they will likely start paying attention and the reason they start paying attention is that it is important RIGHT NOW (even if not all ofit is).

I will be the first to agree that the realy cool payoffs are the ones that have a ton of buildup over multiple sessions - maybe even over the course fof months or more. But front loading the information and background in session one for a three months of gaming just isn't going to work. Some player don't rememebr stuff from last week and I'd hazard a guess that most don't remember stuff from two months ago.

You want the sword to lead to the really cool plot line where the PCs bring together the barabarian tribe? Have the sword show up and get the sword named. THEN have someone looking for the sword for reason A. A couple week later have someone look for the sword for reason B. When a search in the library the following week drops a side note about the ancient legend of a similar sounding weapon then pieces start falling into place. The players may not have cared about the three page history of the weapon when it was found, but you can bet they care now about the weapon and the region now.

Want to run a mystery? Have the PCs find "interesting items" A, B, C and D. Item A leads to the climax of this isession. Item B is the 'real clue' that needs to be put together with event Q and character trait Y three weeks from now. Items C and D mean absolutely nothing. Yet the players will notice the evidance and talk about it later even through half of it means nothing.

*I think this is a more neutral term that "fluff only" or something like that. This may be background, description or something that is entirly not relevant in any way shape or form but the DM thinks is cool. I'll use "extra" to try and stay even-handed here.

 

[Shadeydm]

How about all the DM entitlement being chucked around here?

Yes because clearly expecting to not be interrupted midsentence by players while reading a description of something is DM entitlement /boggle.

 

[Shadeydm]

Gimme a break. There has to be a compromise on both sides here.

Yes there does but as I stated previously that compromising should have taken place before play ever started. Furthermore I see nothing which justifies cutting off the DM midsentence although in the article this seems to get glossed over as the DMs fault.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

How about all the DM entitlement being chucked around here? It's a very bad thing that the players snore through DM's exposition, but, I'm supposed to be grateful for the DM gracing me with a couple of pages of background exposition? Gimme a break. There has to be a compromise on both sides here.

Seriously, when players cut me off during a description or relaying of an element that's important to the story I let them. I'll try to bring it up again at a later time at some point where it makes sense to. If they cut me off again then that's on them. I'd think the simple fact that I've tried to bring something to their attention at least twice would be enough for them to take the hint.

Seriously. They're not interested, theyre not interested.

But when something goes down later in play, that seemingly comes out of nowhere and the players start griping about it I let them know "I tried to give you the information a few sessions ago but you guys werent interested in listening to it. just because YOU dont care doesnt mean that your indifference or non-interest is going to make the world or the bad-guys stop on a dime"

My point, is for me anyway, if it's a description/information of something that might be relevant to the story then take the hint. If not stuff happens.


A suggestion though? Maybe you can have a different "voice" for flowery setting based stuff than your need to know stuff. And by "voice" it can mean how you say things to the players. If youre a DM who uses alot of theatrics and different voices, for important info you can, I dont know, just speak in your regular speaking voice. Or it can be as subtle as you placing a marker in the middle of the table just to get everyones attention. Or simply STOP TALKING and sit there to wait until you have everyones attention, then start telling them what they need to know.

 

[DM-Rocco]

As much as I hate to admit that WOTC is right, I have to agree. While I find it very frustrating when the PCs just grab loot, or worse decide to sell items you made just for them, there is nothing you can do about it. This is why I try and not put too much information in the game anymore and go with pre-made modules. Let someone else do all the work, change a few rooms around and add in some better treasure right for your game, then enjoy.

Side note: I am writting my own adventure path and I am hoping the PCs will enjoy it, but somehow I think I will have put a lot of work into something that I love and I will not see a reward.

Do I think the Dm should get some fun and reward, yes I do. But I doubt it will happen.

 

[Minicol]

It just seems, IMHO this is a really selfish reaction on the end of the players(once again if the info is kept to a reasionable level) that shouldn't be promoted or excused. I could be just a selfish as a DM...I don't care about what feats, skills, etc. you took. I'm running the adventure I want to because it's fun for me. I think this attitude in players or DM's is a bad thing. A better answer, IMHO, is definitely a compromise, unless you all have agreed to play a beer and pretzels type of game. YMMV of course, but I was just wondering what other GM's and players think...in fact I think it would be cool if anyone decides to reply, they put whether they DM more or play more.

I agree with you. No DM = No game.

I have seen more games collapse for lack of a DM than the reverse. Also, WOTC should bear in mind that DMs tend to buy MORE than the players. At least IME.

 

[Elf Witch]

How about all the DM entitlement being chucked around here? It's a very bad thing that the players snore through DM's exposition, but, I'm supposed to be grateful for the DM gracing me with a couple of pages of background exposition? Gimme a break. There has to be a compromise on both sides here.

Compromise involves both sides. I did not read in the article any compromise I read an article telling a DM he is the one who has to change.

A good DM tries to tailor his game to his players style of role playing if they all hate dungeon crawls then it would be dumb to include one. No matter how much the DM loves dungeon crawls if the players are not into them then you are expecting to much from your players.

A good player who enjoys his DMs game listens to him when he talks, if he hands out a handout then a good player will take the time to read them by ignoring them them then the player is being rude and treating the DM badly.

It dosen't matter if this information is not important to the player he should show his DM some courtesy. If the player enjoys the game then would it kill them to be polite to the things that the DM enjoys?

That is nature of compromise give and take on both sides.