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

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Do we have to box in the answer of how to deal with the situation? Sounds as if Noah should be given a well earned "break" from DMing by his own volition and play a PC for awhile. Maybe after asking questions for descriptions the other players benefit, from or being a player for awhile from his being a player, both would increase everyones understanding in the group......But I AM being optimistic. Yet, I switch up running and playing and rarely get burned out doing this.

I play pretty regular still, yet not as much as I did during my extreme years of play. So, after 28 years of play I think I can say it is a pretty safe strategy. IMAO!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Global Warming nothing. This is a real sign of the End of Days.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Global Warming nothing. This is a real sign of the End of Days.

Does that mean 4e is coming?!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Would that make it the 4th Edition of the Apocalypse?

 

[Hussar]

How about we reverse the situation here for a second?

If a player did what Noah proposed, would that be fine? If, as a player, I demand to be allowed a three minute soliloquy, three times per session where I can detail the genealogy of my PC, would that be acceptable? If anyone interrupts me or shows boredom, should I be allowed to kick that person out of the group?

If you stop me from doing this, aren't you stepping all over my fun? Shouldn't you have to show polite interest in my "meticulous" work?

Why or why not?

/edit - btw, just because I can, I totally agree with RC as well. Not THAT is a sign of the coming end of days.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing to keep in mind is that every now and then - and probably more often than most do - the DM should give out *non*-relevant factual information as well as the relevant stuff. Nothing is more annoying than players saying "The DM's mentioning it, it must be important!" when it should fall to them (as it would their characters) to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to information.

If the only information you let the players/characters ever hear is what's directly relevant to their current adventure, you might as well just lead 'em by the nose...

Lanefan

 

[kensanata]

If the only information you let the players/characters ever hear is what's directly relevant to their current adventure, you might as well just lead 'em by the nose...

Tricky. I think a healthy dose of meta-gaming is needed to solve this. What you are saying is realistic, but it at least in my groups, I think it would result in less fun being had at the table. Unless my players are involved in an intrigue, and NPCs are actively trying to mislead them, I basically try to provide only relevant information, but often for different goals. The players then choose which goal to pursue. Thus, I avoid spurious red herings and I avoid railroading.

 

[Numion]

If the only information you let the players/characters ever hear is what's directly relevant to their current adventure, you might as well just lead 'em by the nose...

Everything in their current surroundings is somewhat relevant. Still, should the DM give same effort to describing a beggar on the street as, say, Sauron standing on a streetcorner?

But what do I know. I play with the players minds with pointless banter, like if somebody says "I pick up the stone", I'll ask "Soo .. you're actually touching it?" with a surprised look on my face, picking up a handful of dice. Then they'll squirm for couple of minutes deciding whether to pick up an ordinary stone, or make up some ridiculous excuse how they would manage to pick it up without touching it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

How about we reverse the situation here for a second?

If a player did what Noah proposed, would that be fine? If, as a player, I demand to be allowed a three minute soliloquy, three times per session where I can detail the genealogy of my PC, would that be acceptable? If anyone interrupts me or shows boredom, should I be allowed to kick that person out of the group?

If you stop me from doing this, aren't you stepping all over my fun? Shouldn't you have to show polite interest in my "meticulous" work?

Why or why not?

/edit - btw, just because I can, I totally agree with RC as well. Not THAT is a sign of the coming end of days.

If you're doing the SAME soliloquy about your character's genealogy, you'd probably be bound to get an in-play comment from someone like me to stuff your pedigree back into its book because we all heard it before...with the politeness of the comment depending on the character I play at that moment. On the other hand, it might turn into a character-determining trait for your PC...you know, like "that half-elven bard who alway claimed he was some elven noble's son whenever he got into trouble with authorities" or something like that.

Out-play, listening to it once is okay, to get to know the character's history, or at least as much of it you are willing to share...and again when some detail of it might indeed be of interest to the situation at hand, and we're in a discussion about the current situation. Otherwise, you'll probably annoy your fellow players with the third or so recap.

The DM's job "unfortunately" already contains the listening to the character stories and histories of his players...although, from a simple human point of view, annoyance might set in after the 3rd or 4th time you repeat the same stuff as well.

As an aside...out-play chatter on the table should be discouraged anyway. That includes the retelling of some character detail ad nauseam, as well as a description of some item history or similar stuff outside of an in-play prompting, like a knowledge check or some PC/NPC asking/researching for it. As such, a DM is always well served if he manages to integrate his informations into the game as a framework...something many posters in here have already suggested. Like with a special sword...who keeps you (as DM) from placing a ring of runes around the sword hilt, declaring "This is Flamesnuffer, made from the Frost Jarl's Winter Axe. Whoever holds it shall be king of all the tribes of the Ice Wastes" That should be enough to prompt any player with some sense of curiosity to at least a Knowledge check.

 

[DragonLancer]

How about we reverse the situation here for a second?

If a player did what Noah proposed, would that be fine? If, as a player, I demand to be allowed a three minute soliloquy, three times per session where I can detail the genealogy of my PC, would that be acceptable? If anyone interrupts me or shows boredom, should I be allowed to kick that person out of the group?

If you stop me from doing this, aren't you stepping all over my fun? Shouldn't you have to show polite interest in my "meticulous" work?

Why or why not?

/edit - btw, just because I can, I totally agree with RC as well. Not THAT is a sign of the coming end of days.

It wouldn't get you kicked out of the group but it might well get a polite request to tone it down. Once is interesting and remotely funny. Three times a session every session will get your fellow players bored. Theres a difference between character details (all good IMO) and the DM's exposition. We can easily learn who your character is, but players won't nessecarily know the DM's world. I think theres more politeness in learning the world you play in because it may have relevance. Of course, the DM can overdo it thats true.