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

[ThirdWizard]

Because its never that the DM is just boring.

I sympathize, I really do. I understand that there are players out there who just don't care and that they're problem players. I also know there are bad DMs out there who just aren't great story tellers. In this case, both are a possibility. It seems to me that people are identifying strongly with the DM and assuming more competency than is deserving.

By the by, I agree with Raven. That's always enough of a rarity to point out whenever it happens.

 

[Morrus]

The DM is one of several players who have gotten together to play a game that they mutually enjoy. That's about all there is to it.

 

[molonel]

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

That was actually my first thought when I read that, as well.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

75% of the text of the core rules is about the PCs, what they get and what they kill. The rest is mostly how they do the killing and where they go to do it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

No, I agree, but I do feel that it falls to the DM to ultimately say that. Saying "I'm not going to DM under these conditions" is a valid tactic when the DM wouldn't have fun DMing under those conditions, just as "I'm not playing in your campaign" is a valid tactic when the player wouldn't enjoy playing under those conditions.

But it's an extreme response that should, I think, be rare. It's definitely not a reasonable first reaction when you have a disagreement with your group, I think. It's a last resort. Which is why I don't fault the article for not saying "get more compatible players!" I think that'd be lazy advice-column-ing. Like DTMFA, it's sometimes the best advice, but in this situation, I think the best advice was what the article ultimately told Noah to do: take what you like, combine it with what they like, and everybody wins.

If the DM isn't going to have fun because his players are being jerks, the DM, as the nominal authority figure for the night, should be the one to step down from that position and cede it to someone else (if anyone).

Like a player walking out of a game, a DM stepping down should be done only when a comfortable middle ground cannot be found. The article tried to suggest how to find a comfortable middle ground. It just did it in a very bad way.

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.

Yeah, I pretty much agree here. Too much harping on the kid's ego (which was needed, but shouldn't have been the focus), not enough constructive advice.

But I don't think "Find new players!" would have been very constructie advice, either. Which is what Imrao, it seems, would have the article tell him.

By the by, I agree with Raven. That's always enough of a rarity to point out whenever it happens.

I'm agreeing with RC, too. His advice is probably much closer to what the article SHOULD have said.

 

[molonel]

Kamikaze Midget, if you wouldn't mind, would you throw me an email sometime?

It's at molonel (at) hotmail.com

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I pretty much agree here. Too much harping on the kid's ego (which was needed, but shouldn't have been the focus), not enough constructive advice.

But I don't think "Find new players!" would have been very constructie advice, either. Which is what Imrao, it seems, would have the article tell him.

You know what KM...I'm really getting tired of the blatant misrepresentation of what I mean and say. You're telling me from all of the posts I've put in this thread...every point I've made boils down to the advice should have been...he should quit the group? Okay, see it how you want to...but let me decide what I mean. If you're unsure just ask.

For anyone who seems unclear on my positions let me state them. I first felt that the author did spend way too much of the article's time bashing the DM's fun and promoting one particular playstyle(certain players in the group) as "right".

I also believe that a DM has a right to have just as much fun as his/her player's do...and that his fun doesn't solely have to be the way YOU(author of article, KM, or whoever) have fun in a D&D game. Just because it's different...doesn't make it any less valid.

I am of the position that the...make it relevant advice... may have helped him alot...if the article had actually focused on that, instead of the players(no matter what the circumstances) are always right mentality the author seems to take.

I believe after going and reading the first part of Noah's question then reading the scond again...some of his players might just be asshats, and catering to them over the one's who are showing interest and paying attention is not the answer. Making those players the center of attention, because they can't shut uo for a few minutes is not the answer. Even changing his DM'ing style(not really enough info to determine this) may not be the right answer. Sorry players are not more important than the DM or any other player in the game...they're equal.

Throwing people out your group, or finding a group that wants the same things out of the game that you do, is a viable solution. Maybe it's not to some people's taste and I never said it has to be your first option. However after reading the first part of the question and then reading the second, I got the impression that some of them just don't give him even the basic respect or attention a DM needs to run a game, and could care less whether he is having fun or not. In the first article, at least the author isn't so one-sided as to suggest it's all Noah's fault and then he actually goes on to give Noah advice about solving the problem. However if it doesn't work, why feel like you have to play with these people no matter what? Finding new players is a viable option and should be presented as an alternative if the author is really trying to give neutral advice...oh yeah, wait he isn't.

Another quick point...a few posts back you were claiming the main gist of the article was "make things relevant". Now all of a sudden you agree the article spent too much time berating the DM and his creations. Which one is it? In fact I'd be interested in hearing exactly what you're points are as I'm starting to get confused about what it is your arguing for or against.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I got the impression that some of them just don't give him even the basic respect or attention a DM needs to run a game, and could care less whether he is having fun or not.

Well, they are children. Not a group renowned for long attention spans or selfless behaviour.

 

[Hussar]

*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."

So, in other words, you entirely agree with me. Thank's Shaman. There is no names in the KotB. Which is the point I was making. Whether or not the DM adds to that later is his prerogative, but, that doesn't change the fact that nothing in the Keep is actually named. Nothing. Not a single person, not a single building, not even the hermit living out with his pet.

Nice to see we're in agreement.

 

[Hussar]

By the way, just in case I be accused yet again of misreading, let us review the context in which my statements were made.

Originally Posted by Shadeydm
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.

Quote:
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?

I was simply stating that "back in the day" people were very bit as disinterested in immersive play as they are now. Conversely, they are every bit as interested back then as they are now as well. In other words, some people played deeply immersive games and some didn't. Same as today.

I pointed to a single example, Keep on the Borderlands, of what I meant. For those who wanted deep immersion, they could go TheShaman's route and expand the module. However, I don't think even TheShaman would claim that ALL DM's did this. Some (and I don't know how many) ran the Keep pretty much as written.

It was done that way "back in the day" and its done that way now as well. That the Keep could be expanded in no way actually addresses the point I was making.