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

[I'm A Banana]

Indeed, which is why defeatist "this is just what players are like, accomodate them" advice annoys the heck out of me.

It's why I don't think the article is very good, either, because it seems to come on very strongly with "badwrongfun!" I think the ultimate point is a good one, and that the DM does need to stop taking it so personally (your "art"?!), but the writer makes some kind of sad assumptions about the group, what they're trying to achieve, and how to make it better, and gets lost in kind of bashing the kid's style too much.

The DM has a place for fun in the game that, IMO, is the equal of any player. It's not above all the players, but it's on par with any one of them (which means the DM can be out-voted). I'm lucky, I think, that a huge part of my fun is helping my friends to have fun, so huge that I'll mercilessly execute any plan that seems like a fun idea for a night. But I'm definitely an extreme example.

The kid likes his history. I think the article would have been much better suited to focus on the how to make it relevant (like by spreading it out over multiple sessions or having it tie into the character's current powers or on methods of rewarding curiosity) than on telling the kid to swallow his pride (though the kid probably need to be told that, too, just as his friends might be needed to be told to calm down. ).

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.

The tactic is pulling out the "Why don't you go play another game if you're so not into this one?" card, which isn't a valid argument here. Because D&D certainly can encompass everything the players seem to want from it. It might have some troubles encompassing what the DM wants out of it, at least at the same time, though.

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.

If you missed two paragraphs of a five paragraph (IIRC) article, then I guess I can't really expect you to pick out the various instances of mild to moderate DM superiority complexes that pop up in this thread.

But that's okay. Because that's not the point. The point is that the article tells the DM (in a pretty shoddy fashion, IMO) how to get what he wants: make it relevant. It doesn't need to mention compromise. It's not about whose fun is more important. It's not a Fun Contest where the biggest smile wins. It's about how to keep the players happy, and make the DM happy to boot. The wonderful bit about that advice ("make it relevant") is that if Noah takes it, everyone wins. He gets his history (though probably not big blocks of it), and they get interested in his history (by luring them with the carrot of kewl powerz or phat lewt or whatever is actually relevant to his players).

It does appear that you may be too blinded by ire at the way the message was worded to distil the value in it from the claptrap. The article isn't about player entitlement or weakening a GM's influence or coddling players. It's about cleverly using your position of authority to give people what they want so they'll give you what you want. And yea, some of that is lost in the intial rush to tell the kid that he's not a special, unique snowflake.

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.

That's because this approach is defeatist, narrow minded, and, ultimately, no fun for anyone. It's a valid tactic when people are fundamentally incompatible, but, honestly, if the kid's so touchy that people not respecting his "art" makes him fundamentally incompatible with others, the kid's got bigger problems then what's at the table.

The DM, for better or worse, is responsible for their own enjoyment as well as the players'. That's the burden of authority and power in the game. If the player's aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. If the DM isn't having fun it's the DM's fault. The buck stops there, after all.

So, regardless of who isn't having fun, it's up to the DM to use his power, to control the game environment, and try and make it fun.

Or to give up, I suppose. But, honestly, "Go find another group!" is tossed out way, way, way too much as a tactic, and it's not very constructive. I've had my share of disagreements with players and other DMs, and I've never had to just give up and write them off. Instead, I learned about the situation, dealt with it, educated myself, and moved on.

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.

Again, Noah didn't have any problems listing the item's abilities. He had trouble getting them to care about the appearance and history of the item (they spoke out during his exposition of the appearance, and he complained that they didn't care about the history). Conclusion? They didn't care about the appearance or history of the item. Want them to care? Make it important.

Maybe what he needs to do is learn how to deal with problems in ways other than taking his ball and going home as a first tactic whenever he has a disagreement. Heck, maybe *everyone* needs to learn how to do that.

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?

You should really stop using "fun" like a bludgeon. If the DM's fun comes from having a captive audience for his fantasy "art," he's in the wrong racket playing D&D.

The article did entirely ignore those who Noah said were interested, and that's a shame.

Still, by making it relevant, he rewards them, too. Because if the history is important to getting the powers of the item, then those who have a particular interest in his setting porn will be more inclined to get powers. By integrating his history into the aspects of his game that the players are already all enjoying, he ensures that the important stuff isn't lost.

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.

Are you arguing that these kids wouldn't let the DM get in a word edgewise? Because, again, he mentioned no difficulty when he listed the powers of the item, or at any other time in the adventure.

So perhaps the powers were the only thing relevant to the players and the game at the time. I get the impression the DM wants to showcase his artistic merit in a D&D game, which is something I've seen before, and which always goes horribly, horribly....horrible.

 

[Imaro]

The DM has a place for fun in the game that, IMO, is the equal of any player. It's not above all the players, but it's on par with any one of them (which means the DM can be out-voted). I'm lucky, I think, that a huge part of my fun is helping my friends to have fun, so huge that I'll mercilessly execute any plan that seems like a fun idea for a night. But I'm definitely an extreme example.

So you claim it's not a competition for fun...but the DM can be "out-voted"...right...ok. Everyone's not you and expecting every DM to derive their fun in your one-wayism is just ridiculous.

The kid likes his history. I think the article would have been much better suited to focus on the how to make it relevant (like by spreading it out over multiple sessions or having it tie into the character's current powers or on methods of rewarding curiosity) than on telling the kid to swallow his pride (though the kid probably need to be told that, too, just as his friends might be needed to be told to calm down. ).

Yeah, the difference is the friends aren't ever told that. In fact it's never even suggested that the problem could be them or the way they are acting.

The tactic is pulling out the "Why don't you go play another game if you're so not into this one?" card, which isn't a valid argument here. Because D&D certainly can encompass everything the players seem to want from it. It might have some troubles encompassing what the DM wants out of it, at least at the same time, though.

That's not what I said. It's valid only in so much that Descent doesn't set up variable expectations in playstyle like D&D does. If Noah runs a game of Descent he will have no illusions about where his fun should lie, besides his players seem like they want the style it promotes anyway.

If you missed two paragraphs of a five paragraph (IIRC) article, then I guess I can't really expect you to pick out the various instances of mild to moderate DM superiority complexes that pop up in this thread.

Didn't miss anything. My contention was with you touting two paragraphs, out of five, as being what the article was mainly about. Last time I checked 3/5ths is more than 2/5ths...wait a minute the articles actually ten paragraphs, guessed you missed that, huh?

But that's okay. Because that's not the point. The point is that the article tells the DM (in a pretty shoddy fashion, IMO) how to get what he wants: make it relevant. It doesn't need to mention compromise. It's not about whose fun is more important. It's not a Fun Contest where the biggest smile wins. It's about how to keep the players happy, and make the DM happy to boot. The wonderful bit about that advice ("make it relevant") is that if Noah takes it, everyone wins. He gets his history (though probably not big blocks of it), and they get interested in his history (by luring them with the carrot of kewl powerz or phat lewt or whatever is actually relevant to his players).

You know what? It isn't telling him how to get what he wants, and it is about whose fun is more important. When his players find a magic item some of them want a list of abilities(some aren't even willing to wait for that)...that's it. Noah apparently derives his enjoyment from the creative aspect...how is he going to get what he wants if they aren't even willing to listen to what the item looks like? The appearance of the item is relevant, but if you can't give your DM the respect or attention to tell you...what does it matter if it's relevant or not? He might as well just hand them a piece of paper with a list of it's abilities and call it a day...will he enjoy himself? I seriously doubt it.

It does appear that you may be too blinded by ire at the way the message was worded to distil the value in it from the claptrap. The article isn't about player entitlement or weakening a GM's influence or coddling players. It's about cleverly using your position of authority to give people what they want so they'll give you what you want. And yea, some of that is lost in the intial rush to tell the kid that he's not a special, unique snowflake.

Or you may only be focusing on the parts of the article that you agree with.

That's because this approach is defeatist, narrow minded, and, ultimately, no fun for anyone. It's a valid tactic when people are fundamentally incompatible, but, honestly, if the kid's so touchy that people not respecting his "art" makes him fundamentally incompatible with others, the kid's got bigger problems then what's at the table.

No if I've got a friend who talks all the time, is it defeatist to go to a movie I really want to see with another. I mean I could have a long discourse with my friend, try to get them to see why they should change themselves for me, and go to the movies with my fingers crossed. Or I could just go to an amusement park or concert on a different day with that friend instead. Life's to short and sometimes no gaming is better than bad gaming.

The DM, for better or worse, is responsible for their own enjoyment as well as the players'. That's the burden of authority and power in the game. If the player's aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. If the DM isn't having fun it's the DM's fault. The buck stops there, after all.

I agree to disagree...in any social endeavor all participants hold equal responsibility for both their own enjoyment as well as the enjoyment of others. That's why, especially at an early age, learning to compromise is so important.

So, regardless of who isn't having fun, it's up to the DM to use his power, to control the game environment, and try and make it fun.

Or to give up, I suppose. But, honestly, "Go find another group!" is tossed out way, way, way too much as a tactic, and it's not very constructive. I've had my share of disagreements with players and other DMs, and I've never had to just give up and write them off. Instead, I learned about the situation, dealt with it, educated myself, and moved on.

Good for you, I've gamed with groups I've truly enjoyed...and with those I would never game with again. I am aware of my preferences as a player and a GM, and just like I wouldn't force someone who hates rap to go to a Eminem concert... I don't think expending energy to try and change people is always the best option. YMMV of course.

Again, Noah didn't have any problems listing the item's abilities. He had trouble getting them to care about the appearance and history of the item (they spoke out during his exposition of the appearance, and he complained that they didn't care about the history). Conclusion? They didn't care about the appearance or history of the item. Want them to care? Make it important.

Maybe what he needs to do is learn how to deal with problems in ways other than taking his ball and going home as a first tactic whenever he has a disagreement. Heck, maybe *everyone* needs to learn how to do that.

Or not...All depends on how important said activity with said people are.

You should really stop using "fun" like a bludgeon. If the DM's fun comes from having a captive audience for his fantasy "art," he's in the wrong racket playing D&D.

The article did entirely ignore those who Noah said were interested, and that's a shame.

Still, by making it relevant, he rewards them, too. Because if the history is important to getting the powers of the item, then those who have a particular interest in his setting porn will be more inclined to get powers. By integrating his history into the aspects of his game that the players are already all enjoying, he ensures that the important stuff isn't lost.

You're making some really large blanket assumptions about people who play D&D...Especially since more than one poster has expressed enjoying this type of involvement with their DM's campaign.

The funny thing is your also assuming it wasn't relevant. Perhaps it was relevant to the players who were listening, does that give the others the right, because they aren't the center of attention at this moment, to act the asshat role? Perhaps the two listening were the only ones interested in doing something other than fighting the next monster...of course if he made all the magic items always relevant to the next monster, he'd probably bore the players who want more out of the game. Two players didn't even want to hear the abilities they just grabbed the staff...how much more "relevant" can you get than the actual powers of the items. The more I read it, they just seem like rude players.

Are you arguing that these kids wouldn't let the DM get in a word edgewise? Because, again, he mentioned no difficulty when he listed the powers of the item, or at any other time in the adventure.

So perhaps the powers were the only thing relevant to the players and the game at the time. I get the impression the DM wants to showcase his artistic merit in a D&D game, which is something I've seen before, and which always goes horribly, horribly....horrible.

Uhm...read the first part of the article, then ask me that again. You know the first part where he explains that, except for two players, the others talk over him and don't pay attention.

Like I said two players screamed for the item before they even knew what it did. It sucks you've never played with a DM who could pull this off well. If you're ever in Chicago hit me up and I'll show you how it's done.

 

[Hussar]

The most telling point in the whole article is this IMO:

The night before, I had meticulously prepared a long paragraph on the history of the staff, where it came from, who made it, etc.

"Meticulously prepared a long paragraph?" This is infodumping. Is it really a shock when players rebel?

Look at it this way, if I tell you that King Jayavarman (sp) ruled the Khmer kingdom in the 11th century, that's a tidbit that will stick in your head for maybe 30 seconds. OTOH, if you are standing in the ruins of the Bayon, looking up at the hundreds of two story stone carvings of Jayavarman's smiling face all smiling beautifically, then it might be a tad more relavent.

Let's also not forget that there is more information to be found here where Noah complains about how four of his six players are gabbing away instead of paying attention to the game.

From the looks of things, there are much larger issues here than simply player entitlement.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There are things I want to do with a game, ways I DM that I can't change and still have fun, no matter what the players feel.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

*sigh*

"Within are many features to aid novice players and Dungeon Masters: legends, history, and background information . . ." - Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands, front cover

"This module is another tool. It is a scenarlo or setting which will help you to understand the fine art of being a Dungeon Master as you introduce your group of players to your own fantasy world, your interpretation of the many worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Adventure. THE KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS is simply offered for your use as a way to move smoothly and rapidly into your own special continuing adventures or campaigns. Read the module thoroughly; you will notice that the details are left in your hands. This allows you to personalize the scenario, and suit it to what you and your players will find most enjoyable. . . .

"The KEEP is only a small section of the world. You must build the towns and terrain which surround it. You must shape the societies, create the kingdoms, and populate the countryside wlth men and monsters.

"The KEEP is a microcosm, a world in miniature. Within its walls your players will find what is basically a small village with a social order, and will meet opponents of a sort. Outside lies the way to the Caves of Chaos where monsters abound. As you bulld the campaign settlng, you can use thls module as a guide." - Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands, page 2 (emphasis in the original)

The Keep was never intended to be played in the barebones format in which it was presented - it offered a framework on which the dungeon master was expected to build.

And by the way, page 28 of the module is a table for recording information about NPCs from the Keep or the Caves - the first column for recording NPC information is, "Name."

 

[Numion]

The Keep was never intended to be played in the barebones format in which it was presented - it offered a framework on which the dungeon master was expected to build.

Oh. That makes it all right.



NOT!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The DM, for better or worse, is responsible for their own enjoyment as well as the players'. That's the burden of authority and power in the game. If the player's aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. If the DM isn't having fun it's the DM's fault. The buck stops there, after all.

You know, KM, you have a pretty skewed point of view on that, to be honest. I don't know about you, but I've been in enough games (as DM and as a player) where the DM wasn't having fun at all, but the only thing he could have done to change that was to get up and leave the game. There's enough ways that players can ruin a DM's fun (and some of them will do exactly that) without the blame being on the DM's shoulders. D&D, as any other roleplaying game, is usually a cooperative game between a group of players, and as any cooperative game, the responsibility for the fun of tha participants lies on everybody's shoulders, not on one alone. The distribution may be unequal, sure...but you're going a tad too far there, in my opinion. I'm not into D&D because I'm a public service guy whos job it is to please all customers and who has to either take it and swallow or live with the frustration. I take my fun as a DM from my players' fun, sure...but also from the appreciation of what I'm trying to come up with. Otherwise, I could as well just put as much work into my game preparations as the average gamer in my group puts into his character maintenance, which would make for a pretty meager game most of the time.

The article simply missed the chance to tell the kid something useful, and in clear words. Instead, it mostly sounds like "Hey, if your players don't think it necessary, don't bring it up. You're there to please them, not to enjoy your own creativity" in a nutshell. Which is the worst thing to tell a young DM. This thread here contains more creative and helpful ideas and solutions to his problem than that article, and in ways that would help the kid keep his creative ideas AND integrate them into the game so his players would want to know about them. But this isn't WotC, and it's not the place that new players would come to first to get some help with a problem.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

If the DM isn't having fun it's the DM's fault. The buck stops there, after all.

I've never seen a statement on this forum that I disagreed with more. I've had bad players screw up games no matter how hard I tried to keep it on the track we agreed to before the game started.

I guess you could say that its the DM's fault for not saying "Game over" and stopping the session though. But I've never had a problem with that. I'm not playing if I'm not having fun and bad D&D is much worse than no D&D at all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The following is my own personal opinion, and not to be taken as a univeral.

Every game of D&D, when starting with new players, includes a learning curve. The players are each teaching the DM and each other what they enjoy about the game, and what they hope to get out of it. The DM is training the players in what he or she enjoys about the game, and what he or she expects to get out of it. Talking about this is a big help, and the more the DM and players are able to articulate their desires and expectations, the better things are likely to go.

As a DM who uses a lot of description, and has a lot of interrelated bits of history, lore, etc., I would agree with people who say that you need to avoid infodumping, and that you need to break down information so that the entire history of an object, say, comes about through multiple encounters. The players certainly shouldn't learn it until the PCs do.

When starting with a new group of players, it is important to teach them that, in your campaign, listening to information is important. The easiest way to do this is to begin by keeping it short, keeping it relevant, and making it important fairly quickly. Once the players have the hang of this, you can increase the length of some bits, add some bits of seemingly-extraneous info, and make some things important later on. As they learn to trust that much of what they learn is actually relevant, they will be able to deal with -- and enjoy! -- learning more about the world.

At the same time, the wise player is showing whatever interest he or she can in the things that person finds enjoyable. If you like fight scenes, then make sure your DM knows! Even if the fight scenes in the begining seem "basic" to you, you can bet that if you act bored your DM will be learning that you don't like fighting (instead of that you want more complicated fights, which is what you want the DM to learn).

Player or DM, you should be expecting this learning time to occur in a new game, relax a little, and (as Kahuna Burger said in another thread) metagame a bit to figure out how to make the game more fun for everyone involved.

As the DM, you set the rewards. If you want your players to listen to information, then try having that information linked to some specific reward. This needs to go "information > means to gain reward > reward" if you want it to work. Giving the reward before the information is usually not as effective.

Handouts that go to a specific player are a good means of infodumping, btw. If you have a bard, rather than read out that history, hand a print out to the bard. When one player gets information that the others don't share, interest is automatically piqued. You might see that print out passed around, read, and discussed where before your players had nary a glimmer of interest. I've done similar things with dreams, restored memories, and found letters, and I can say with considerable experience that if you have seven players at the table, and give a handout to one, the other six are almost automatically interested. Just don't make that handout too long, and make sure that it adds something to the game for everyone.

If the players are not interested, that's fine, too. In one game, I had a ruined temple. It included specific information about the divine statues that were there (several being able to grant special bonuses). Clues about the bonuses, and how to get them were in the statues' descriptions. When the PCs examined the statues, I began to describe them. The players decided that they weren't interested in that level of description, so they lost an opportunity. That's okay. The temple is still there, and they or other PCs might use it in the future.

For the most part, though, making information useful means that the players will often pay attention to -- and even seek out -- information.

All of that said, any player who consistently damages the fun of anyone at the table, player or DM, is going to be shown the door if I'm running the game. As a DM, I have the right to have fun or stop running the game. As a player, you have the right to have fun or stop playing. I expect all of us to have the maturity to accomodate each others' fun to a reasonable degree.

RC

 

[William drake]

I so disagree. I as a player want to know because it adds a richness to the game world. Most of my characters would want to k ow as well. I tend to play curious characters who crave knowledge.

The DM does not have to deliver a 15 minute lecture on the background of the item but some key points about the history of an item can give you a glimpse about the world and can also be used a clues to further the game.

I second that.

And, as a Dm, if I ever opened my mouth, and saw players rollin their eyes or just waiting to kill things, I would tell them to go home and plug in their P3's and just have at it.

Players who roll their eyes, or slouch in the sofa waiting to move on are the type of players that shouldn't leave the dungeon. The Big World, with it's Big Reasons for things, scare them. Sure, they want the killing sword, but the won't take the time to hear why the last hero who held it DIED, all they know is that their level is now +3 and that if the wizard in the party ever talks down them again they can just cut him in two.

I agree, the Dm should never speak of history as it's written out of a book. When it's give, it should be through a character, or somethign found, like a book...which, if somone is looking at it...that means THERE READING IT, and untill they say stop, or " I close it" then the DM keeps telling them what's infront of them. The other info, is just info that the players would know, and yes, sometimes theres alot, but if you don't know it, and the DM lets it go, when the time comes that you should've known that, the players go "well, I didn't know...why didn't you tell me"

Some Dm's just need to see that there are playes that are always going to be upset and think that the game is about them, what they get, and what they kill.

Game On