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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, let's take some of your own words throughout this thread:

I would hate to try that type of game with the players or the author of that article. They'd be the type eventually starring at me slack-jawed...claiming I didn't give them anything to do...

This type of thinking almost makes me want to quit DM'ing...if I had to deal with players who weren't at least, minimally, willing to indulge what makes the game fun for me...I probably would have stopped DM'ing when I first got into D&D and just been a player....

without the PC's backstory, world history information, description, basically the campaign world...then why play D&D instead of say Descent?...So why choose D&D over this if you, or your players, aren't interested in any of the things that differentiate D&D from a boardgame such as this or Heroquest?...

MHO 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....

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...

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....

I said that it seemed like you would have preferred the article to have said "Get new players." These are some of the things you've said to give me that impression. If that's not the impression you hoped to give, clarify.

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".

Hey, lookit that, I've been agreeing with you.

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.

Also agreed. I think that being flexible about your fun times is totally a quality to be encouraged, so that you try new things and different things that might also be fun for you, or at least not boring. And again, if the only way the kid can have fun at a game is reading off long paragraphs to a rapt audience, I believe he will be continually disappointed in other people in life, at least until such a time as he has surrounded himself with enablers who share this trait, and said "goodbye" to a lot of potential good friends and companions along the way.

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.

We share the position.

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.

Here's where we mostly disagree. I don't dispute that this is a possibility. I think it's an equal possibility that Noah is a middle schooler with dreams of being the next Tolkein who delights in that kind of world detail, and so is always crafting elaborate histories and descriptions of the iconic elven tea ceremonies. And his players have learned that 60% of the time he's talking, it's about stuff they don't care about. So when he begins his latest mini-epic ("long paragraph" of "art") about elf-hewn wood of the northlands, they tell him to get on with it already.

So I think assuming it's either one is reading too much of your own biases into the situation.

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.

Read my first post in the thread again. I'm not a fan of the article, but I thought I'd tease out the good points it does make. And, actually, I neglected the article's pointing out of Weapons of Legacy, which is a way of making history directly relevant. Ulterior sales motives aside, it would be a good remedy for Noah's problems: cool powers with a rich history.

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Notes on Keeping the players attention

The information control of DMing, too much and too little information, is an art form and takes practice and experience doing it to master. Don't be too hard on yourself or your players about it. Yet there are methods you can develope to gain their interest without getting upset.....and I mean on a dime.

First of all before a discription you should try and get the players attention in the first place. Clearing your throat once is a descent way to do this. Otherwise use the following or some such methods.

Situation A:: During a description in a room the players seem to be getting bored rather quickly. They obviously don't get what the big deal is with the lengthy description or at least some of them don't as their eyes glaze over. Behind the DM shield you have a spiral notebook with times and dates you record in it and what you are reading has a reference tag of some kind. You stop your description. You look at a player and ask what their character is doing. You note it. You continue around the board and get the data from all the players that look like they are ignoring the description first and then you look to the ones that are still listening and ask. "Shall, I continue the description you were listening to or would you rather hear it in private?"

This is one example of a strategy of recording what people pay attention to. If the DM writes something down it is important! If you didn't listen to the description over such an event you have missed something literally of note!

If you do this kind of thing you need to make the description relavent. Future encounters need to be relavant to the description. If they don't have a bard to give them data.....short change them with information about objects except for very simply descriptions and don't reveal powers without work on the characters parts. If the description had other relevant information give the players the information if they are attentive now. Yet the ones listening better should get something extra for important information unless they left for "real life survival reasons or something like that". You can make allowances for that. This is one way to get the players attention and hang on your words......Don't waste their time either.

Situation B: A few players keep talking out of game and they cut the DM off and have been ignoring a description and being disruptive to the point you are annoyed. Allow for spot checks only for those paying attention already. The others whom want a spot check you may allow or disallow them, deciding if their players are distracted by some other random thing after rolling some arbitrary dice behind the screen and laughing quietly because now the dark side of DMing is here. Now have everyone whom you decide isn't flat footed to roll initative as an attack or fight breaks out or some other disturbance some of the characters are flatfooted for! If you have players with characters that cannot be caught flatfooted inform them of what "other" thing they have to contend with first. (Finish restrapping their armor, quit the flirting with the bar maid, put their boots back on that they were getting a rock out of.....what ever!

Conclusion: Not paying attention to what the DM is saying is bad.....Always! For the DM gives you the information about your "stimuli" within the universe your character resides in. Anyone can "Space out" or get distracted even the most intelligent and wise or sharp witted........It is part of characterization and adventure! If you make the mistake of ignoring you still fun your players will be challenged to stay on their toes! Not paying attention can result in penalties to sleep spells and such too. (circumstantal)

Be cautiously subtle about this behavior on your part or the players will get the ruse. And NEVER tell them about the reasons for anything you do in these regards I give you! For these are old DM Ruses that are nearly a joking standard for old DMs. I have honored your questions with some methods of procedure that have worked many places with many DMs and players alike. Don't give it away lightly yet practice this and your own version of such skills. Enjoy the role of DM for the Story Tellers of Old are still among us and some of them are we! It isn't a magic spell yet the secret art and knowledge of DMing isn't all in the DMG!

BTW if players were to behave that way in a different game like anything by I.C.E. they could find their characters not breathing fairly quickly...........why should it be any different. Good players are grown and so are good DMs yet it is abit tougher for DMs because they have a slightly more direct result on players growth than they realize. Players do assist in DM growth as well. Want proof? Easy.....If you hadn't encounter difficulties and related to that thread in some personal way I find it difficult to believe this thread would have even been started of lasted this long.

-HGF

 

[The Shaman]

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.

This is simply nonsense.

The Keep on the Borderlands is not an example of gamers being "every bit as disinterested in immersive play" - as the module itself states, the referee is expected to add the details that fix the Keep and its environs in a place in space and time, to add color and chrome appropriate to the game the gamers want to play.

You go on to state that that's how the game was played "back in the day," a blanket statement without qualification that is as nonsensical as your original assertion. Did some gamers play B2 without ever naming the Bailiff or the Priest? No doubt. Was the module written with that style of play in mind? Did it encourage the dungeon master or the players to take this approach? Unequivocally no.

 

[Hussar]

This is simply nonsense.

So, you're saying that every player "back in the day" was completely into immersive play and that gamers have radically changed in the past couple of decades?

Regardless of your penchant for trying to jump on me every time I make any sort of comparison, this is all I'm trying to say - gamers haven't changed very much in the past few decades. Some played deeply immersive games, and others played Fred the Third after Fred the Second bit the dust.

 

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

So, you're saying that every player "back in the day" was completely into immersive play and that gamers have radically changed in the past couple of decades?

Regardless of your penchant for trying to jump on me every time I make any sort of comparison, this is all I'm trying to say - gamers haven't changed very much in the past few decades. Some played deeply immersive games, and others played Fred the Third after Fred the Second bit the dust.

I can agree by a distinguishable degree with what you say...... There are some social/environ differences however. Many places the D&D game was for more Taboo than it is today. And there are far more players today, therefore there are more of each kind of player and more radically different types of gamers than before in regards to RPGs and many other gaming formats. There are an increasing amount of eliteists as well. Not that there is anything right or wrong about that.

Gamers are raising new blood into the games. Parents teach it to their children. Sometimes you will find three generations of a family involved in a game. The D&D game had this at its start yet it was not common place. So as it diversifies many things will happen, some good, some not so good, some better and some worse. Just like any other human situation yet with an important differance.........

RPGs could theoretically drive and important wedge between many whom over rely on TV as the most important member of the family and those whom do not. There is no way to tell what will become of this at the current time. This is theoretical yet it is already starting. If applied to Academics with Mneumonics and such RPG's could change the world and even perhaps usher in a Golden Age, so to speak; with TV and other medias as allies.

Yet if the ettiquette and concerns for the old and the new are not addressed then these great suggested futures look more difficult. In other worlds the "percieved differences" between the old and the new gamers are important for discussion from before, here and now from now on out. We must communicate what we notice or our beginning will be short lived for prosterity.

There are the same gamers as before and there are new "kind" of gamers. Basically, I am suggesting you are both correct. Neither is incorrect. The ideas you have both presented do not seem in conflict at all except on the surface.

Sincerely, HGF

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Maybe the discussion if Keep on the Borderland is a valid example of people 25 years back having a wide variety of playstyles would be better served in a different thread? Not that I personally really think it makes any sense beyond creating a little flaming battlefield, but that's not my problem. Just seems it's not quite conducive to the discussion in this thread here?

Anyway, with KM AND ThirdWizard agreeing with the Raven, I wonder that ENWorld hasn't imploded already.

 

[kensanata]

I don't agree with this mutual boredom fest view of D&D where the DM gets to bore the players in exchange for them boring him. How about instead of boring one another, you do some things that everyone finds interesting? I mean there must be some aspects of the game that both you and your players enjoy, right?

QFT. The best advice is to find a different group. If the DM is able to compromise, more power to him or her! Personally, I try to keep descriptions short. Every word should count. Conversely, I try to not waste any time making up stuff beforehand that I might not need later. This can have unfortunate side-effects for certain player types. If they like storytelling and method acting, you can't just strip fluff. So I compensate by making some fluff essential for problem solving: The mission is to make sure friend X can marry girl Y but somebody is trying to ruin it. Now the party needs to understand who is in a position to hire ninjas, whether escorting her through the wild woods of the forest king instead of taking them along the king's road involves a loss of face or not, and so on.

 

[Imaro]

Here's where we mostly disagree. I don't dispute that this is a possibility. I think it's an equal possibility that Noah is a middle schooler with dreams of being the next Tolkein who delights in that kind of world detail, and so is always crafting elaborate histories and descriptions of the iconic elven tea ceremonies. And his players have learned that 60% of the time he's talking, it's about stuff they don't care about. So when he begins his latest mini-epic ("long paragraph" of "art") about elf-hewn wood of the northlands, they tell him to get on with it already.

So I think assuming it's either one is reading too much of your own biases into the situation.

My problem is that the article does assume one over the other. The issue that you're talking about is adressed over...and over...and over again, yet not once is the fact that it could be some of his players that have the problem touched on. You say telling him to find a new group should be a last resort, yet you have no problem with the fact that the article tells him his fun will never interest players, it's wasted effort...and players are just like that. I call shenanigans on that.

Players of D&D are a very diverse group of people and for the author or anyone else to make such wide sweeping claims is just wrong. I find this funny, because the minute anyone says D&D is like a boardgame...or is all hack n slash...you get a boatload of people telling you all these other things it can be. Yet this article, on the WotC page, basically reinforces and for these younger gamers asserts that this is the "correct" way to play. I assert that this is the "correct" way to play...if everyone finds enjoyment in it, which apparently is not the case. It is the one-wayism supported in this article that I have a problem with, especially since it is asserted with very little actual data about their group.

In my group right now I've got two players who like hack n slash, one who abhors combat but loves mysteries, and plotlines, and another who leans toward the stories and plotlines with combat thrown in on a semi-regular basis. Now your "make it relevant" advice is all well and good, and I do this to a point(see below). But having players at both ends of the spectrum has made me realize that;

1. There are different ways of playing D&D and different people want different things out of playing a roleplaying game. Some what to kill things and take their stuff, others want to experience something akin to a fantasy story they help build. Neither is objectively the right way to play. There is only the right way to play for you.

2. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but that doesn't mean those who aren't getting what they want at this exact moment have a right to step all over other players or the DM's fun. With my player above who is into plot and storylines...she doesn't talk or pull out a book when combat starts, but I think she would have a right to get bored or even mad if the night was one long combat. This is where compromise enters the picture.

I have a question about the make it relevant sentiment. Shouldn't there be things described that aren't relevant? If you only describe what is relevant won't your players always know when they should search, or make a spot check or whatever? Is this the way most people play, because I personally mix it up...I describe what the players would see, hear, smell, etc. regardless whether it's is relevant or not. Then they decide what is relevant from the information given.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My problem is that the article does assume one over the other. The issue that you're talking about is adressed over...and over...and over again, yet not once is the fact that it could be some of his players that have the problem touched on. You say telling him to find a new group should be a last resort, yet you have no problem with the fact that the article tells him his fun will never interest players, it's wasted effort...and players are just like that. I call shenanigans on that.

The thing is, there is a middle ground that you skipped over, and that the article skipped over. I'm not really defending the article (it made some good points, it could have made them better). But between your extreme of greedy players and the article's extreme of bored players is a middle ground that both you and the original author are largely overlooking.

And THAT's my problem with both your posts that suggest the players are jerks AND the article which suggests that the DM is hyper-sensitive.

I have less of a problem with the article, because I think that Noah's own words easily point in the direction of him being hyper-sensitive, which is a case that did need to be addressed. It's not really possible to address the players for being jerks because OF COURSE they seem like jerks if he's being hyper-sensitive.

We know Noah through his own words (which include calling what he does "art" and saying that he spends long hours crafting history and gives his players "long paragraphs" of information). We only know his players through his words, not their own, and he's been shown to be possibly hyper-sensitive.

Sure, his players COULD be being jerks. But it's not really a reliable narrator, here, which has been shown. It'd be pretty absurd to take his condemnation of his players at face value.

I do think it should have been raised as a point. I don't think it's as egregious an error as you do. I think the error you make in taking the opposite extreme is deeper.

Players of D&D are a very diverse group of people and for the author or anyone else to make such wide sweeping claims is just wrong.

I think the article had a very real need to tell the kid he's not a special unique snowflake. I think that imperative POSESSED the article, and he couldn't deviate from the "you're doing it wrong!" message.

Because the kid is not a special unique snowflake, his "art" does not inherently deserve ANY attention, and D&D IS the wrong place to dump a paragraph of world history upon the location of a magic item (most of the time).

1. There are different ways of playing D&D and different people want different things out of playing a roleplaying game. Some what to kill things and take their stuff, others want to experience something akin to a fantasy story they help build. Neither is objectively the right way to play. There is only the right way to play for you.

The majority seem to sit at a middle ground where they want to help build a story where they kill things and take their stuff. The article aims (and largely misses) that.

I have a question about the make it relevant sentiment. Shouldn't there be things described that aren't relevant? If you only describe what is relevant won't your players always know when they should search, or make a spot check or whatever? Is this the way most people play, because I personally mix it up...I describe what the players would see, hear, smell, etc. regardless whether it's is relevant or not. Then they decide what is relevant from the information given.

It depends on how expedient you want to be.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have a question about the make it relevant sentiment. Shouldn't there be things described that aren't relevant? If you only describe what is relevant won't your players always know when they should search, or make a spot check or whatever? Is this the way most people play, because I personally mix it up...I describe what the players would see, hear, smell, etc. regardless whether it's is relevant or not. Then they decide what is relevant from the information given.

Depends on what you mean by "relevant." I've been using relevant to mean something the PCs are interacting with or something that will affect the flow/plot/playing of the game. So, if the PCs enter a mansion, then describing the decor is relevant, because the PCs are in that environment. Going into detail about how the tapestries were crafted by blind deaf monks is probably not going to be relevant so going into that detail isn't.

So on the flaming sword example from before, describing what the sword looks like is relevant, in my mind, while the origins are not. If the PCs see something, you should probably tell them, since the DM is their only connection to what the PCs experience. Then if a PC wants to make a Knowledge (history) or Bardic Knowledge check about the sword, it can become relevant to the PC because its information he or she wants to know.

So relevant information doesn't have to be important or pertinent in all cases (though if you start going off this track too much it can get boring), but it does mean that it has something to do with the PCs, the adventure, or the environment in which the PCs are acting. Everyone is going to have a slightly different expectation here, and the trick is to determine how much is too much and how little is too little for the participants. Some people are Hemingway, others are Robert Jordon, most are somewhere in between.