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

[Raven Crowking]

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...

I agree 100%.

I would agree more, if possible.

Because one of the games that I run is completely composed of teenaged boys (apart from myself), I would have to say that any comments claiming that kids that age cannot pay attention, and cannot enjoy detail and options is simply untrue.

***************

To Hussar:

Whether you like it or not, part of the DM's job is to convey the environment that the game takes place in. The DM provides the eyes and ears of the PCs (as well as noses and tastebuds!) and must give adequate description. The DM also provides information that PCs know as a matter of course, as a result of skill checks, and as a result of divination. No matter how you slice it, the DM is going to be doing a lot of talking.

However, over the course of the game, the players do a lot of talking to. When the players want to question the stableboy, the DM shouldn't (IMHO) say "Guys, I'm just not interested in that" -- a better game results by allowing the players to make those choices. Likewise, when the players are chatting among themselves, trying to determine what to do, the DM can interject by having the environment do something (i.e., wandering monster), but should not (again, IMHO) say "Guys, this is boring over here, get a move on."

It is my gaming philosophy that the DM provides context and consequences of choices (which includes...but is not limited to...telling the players what they see, creating backdrop, determining weather and environment, and taking on the roles of NPCs and monsters), but that the players and the players alone are responsible for making PC choices.

It is also true that the DM does far more work that the players, individually or as a group. One seldom hears people complain about "Player Burnout" but "DM Burnout" is a frequent complaint. In order to engage successfully in an activity, for most people, and at most times, you have to get more out of it than you put into it. Of course, if you're DMing, you ought to enjoy some of the background work, and that enjoyment has to be figured into the equation, but there is still a lot of work.

Now, if you live in an area with 70 DMs and half a dozen potential players, those DMs will all be vying for players, and the players can pretty much dictate terms. OTOH, most people (IME and based upon what I read here) live in areas where there are far more players than potential DMs, and the consequence of not being a bit willing to compromise is not having a DM to play with. In most places, AFAIK, regardless of what "Save My Game" would have you believe, the DMs control the market.

If a player is unwilling to show me a bit of courtesy, he can find a new game. That's simple. I have no obligation to allow anyone to play that I don't want to. And I extend that philosophy as well -- if a player is unwilling to show the other players a bit of courtesy, he can find a new game. None of us is under any obligation.

The role of player and DM are different, and hence require different things in terms of how courtesy is shown, but the basic requirement is there for all. Jerks get the boot.


RC

 

[Hussar]

But, detailing the stableboy when I want to talk to the stableboy is not irrelavent. It's 100% relevant to the situation. My PC can see the stableboy, and wants to talk to him.

That's not my point. Keeping information relevant is the mantra I've been repeating throughout this thread.

OTOH, we've seen more than a few posters wanting the DM to be able to go into intricate and lengthy detail about elements which are not relevant to the party. Detailing the construction of the magic staff when the PC's just find it is probably not overly relevant right now and possibly will never be relevant. If you have to start changing details to make something relevant (like counting on the players to start looking around for the barbarians) then it's not relevant until they start doing that.

My PC wants to start detailing information that is relevant to me and no one else. I didn't mean to say that I was making the same speech every time. No. I'm going into meticulous detail about my family tree extending back further and further each time.

Why is the DM allowed to do this, but the players are not? Why is the DM allowed to give rather lengthy speeches about elements that are not relevant (or at the very least not relevant right now), but the players are not?

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. The DM is going to do more talking than the players. One thing I don't agree with though is the idea that just because I do more work, it somehow beholdens the players to me. I would hope that my players are listening to me because what I'm saying is interesting and exciting. Not because they somehow feel they owe me anything. I don't approach the game in such a mercenary fashion. Their attention is something I earn by being a good DM, not something I expect because I spent time outside of the game prepping.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Well in my game, the first time any PC meets any other PC, if they want, they describe what they're character looks like as well as any information or background they would want the other PC's to know. Here's an example a new player from work thought up in his first game of Castles and Crusades with us...

He played a cleric who said he had what appeared to be rope burns on his neck, this really got both me and the other players interested...he never told anyone what the rope burns were, from...never wanted to talk about it in character was his favorite answer...and even admitted to me out of game that he had no idea where the rope burns came from. He just thought it was cool. Was it relevant? Not at all. Did it add to the game...sure, for his character, and that was cool.

I'll also state for the record that I love playing Exalted (when I'm in the mood to play a crunch heavy game and have all or mostly players who are familiar with the rules.). Now one thing I've taken from Exalted and used in both my C&C as well as my D&D game is the idea of "stunt bonuses". A stunt is any cool description of the way an action is performed, in or out of combat.

Now as a GM sometimes the players can get a little boring or repetitive with it, and in the end the +1 or +2 I give isn't really worth that much...but my players seem to love doing this. I have no problem listening to their descriptions of how their characters perform their actions, though I will admit it can be boring at times for me...however I also expect them to listen when I'm describing something as well. It's give and take. Maybe I've just got players who fit my style better than most...but I have no problem with players being descriptive and they have no problem with me being descriptive as well. In our minds it shows that were interested in what is going on in the game.

Hussar, I think the 3 minutes is a little extreme. I don't think most people are arguing that the DM or players should be droning on for 3 minutes. Most of us are arguing that as a player you have a responsibility to at least indulge the fun of your DM (within reason), just as he should indulge yours (within reason). If we're still talking about the article, I think this is my, as well as others, sticking point. It doesn't address this at all. It is all about promoting a "correct playstyle" and I for one, don't believe such exsits as far as roleplaying games are concerned. IMHO it's about compatible playstyles. I listen to what the player's characters do, say, and think all the time (and no, it's not always the most exciting thing for me.)...but to claim that the only way they should listen to what I'm saying is if it's relative to them at this particular moment, otherwise they should cut me off or talk over me, just doesn't sit right with me. Some people want more than combat and bonuses out of D&D...some don't, Personally neither style, IMHO, is inherently better than another, and I'm not sure that sacrificing the playstyle you enjoy is necessarily the best route to go. I mean WotC sells crunch, so of course the side that wants crunch is right(buy Weapons of Legacy, it'll solve your problems), but I just don't agree.

Maybe Noah should cut back a little...maybe his players, not the two who do seem to enjoy and listen to him, should listen more. The problem is that the article is too one sided and makes no argument for the fun of everyone being important...It argues only for those players who are bored unless your listing the bonuses of their items.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, detailing the stableboy when I want to talk to the stableboy is not irrelavent. It's 100% relevant to the situation. My PC can see the stableboy, and wants to talk to him.

You missed my point.

The stableboy is relevant to the player, because the player wants to talk to him. The DM indulges the player in this, although he knows that the stableboy is pretty boring to him. If the player has fun, and plays it up, then he might entertain the DM even if the DM expected talking to the stableboy to be boring. This is in answer to your question about the DM having to listen to the players recite their geneaologies.

Simply because something isn't immediately interesting to the DM doesn't mean that he should limit the players.

The backdrop of the item is relevant to the DM, and for whatever reason the DM thinks it important for the players to know. The players indulge the DM in this, although they expect it to be boring.

Simply because something isn't immediately interesting to the players doesn't mean that they should limit the DM.

I say that the DM should learn the equivilent of having fun, playing it up, and then possibly entertaining the players even though they might have expected it to be boring. The SMG article should have IMHO given a lot of the advice that has appeared in this thread. The SMG article should not have IMHO said, essentially "Players have no attention span, and this stuff is boring, so drop it."

Moreover, if there is a problem where either DM or player(s) consistently derail the game with things that are of no interest to anyone else, the problem is one of courtesy and/or playstyle. This might mean finding a new game/player(s) is the best solution. If the DM (in particular) is the problem, it might mean that he could benefit from spending some more time developing "showman" skills and learning how to integrate his ideas into the game without derailing it.

Again, the one thing he should not be told is to just shut up and forget his ideas. That's the fastest route to DM Burnout there is. It is also, IMHO, the gist of the SMG article.

I honestly don't think that we disagree on the above. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why is the DM allowed to give rather lengthy speeches about elements that are not relevant (or at the very least not relevant right now), but the players are not?

Perforce, the DM has more information to the players, and must also convey more information to the players. The DM may well know that something is relevant that the players do not. The players are in no position to know what is relevant unless the DM only mentions things that are relevant when they are relevant.

I, for one, encourage players to develop their characters in such a way as they have individual interests, goals, and plans. In this case, the player might well know that something is relevant that the other players do not (and, in some cases, that the DM does not). This is a good thing, IMHO, and means that a player might go down a tangent that seems irrelevant. A good deal of fun is had when suddenly things that seemed irrelevant become very relevant indeed. If you don't allow for seemingly irrelevant things, then you deny yourself and your players this experience.

IMHO, and IME, when skillfully done, this is one of the best parts of RPGs.

(Recently, I ran The Dread Mausoleum, which I made available on EN World for others. The real monsters of the piece are dread ghoul mouse swarms. Before the dgms are encountered, I mention mice and mouse droppings repeatedly, so that when the dgms are actually encountered, that seemingly trivial bit of description is suddenly understood to be foreshadowing. The players had fun, and I had fun. If either of us were unwilling to include/listen to "irrelevant" details, the game would have been far less fun for all of us.)

In more direct answer to your question, the DM is telling the players what they see/hear/smell/know in an "omniscient narrator" voice. The players, when they are giving long speeches, are doing so as player characters. Which means that, as they are doing so in "real time" others may interrupt them (including other players).

I don't expect the players to sit still while NPCs speak, either. If the BBEG is monologuing, why wouldn't you use that as a chance to act? If you aren't interested in what the sage has to tell you, you don't need to listen. You simply accept the consequences of not knowing later. That seems fairly simple to me.

EDIT: Oh, and I will give certain players specific information that they are then allowed to convey, as detailed earlier. The players then determine how (and if) that information is conveyed.

RC

 

[Imaro]

OTOH, we've seen more than a few posters wanting the DM to be able to go into intricate and lengthy detail about elements which are not relevant to the party. Detailing the construction of the magic staff when the PC's just find it is probably not overly relevant right now and possibly will never be relevant. If you have to start changing details to make something relevant (like counting on the players to start looking around for the barbarians) then it's not relevant until they start doing that.

You know, this is totally dependant upon the type of players you have. With a...we show up for the dungeon of the week group...the extra info is pointless. For players that pursue they're own goals and interst...tidbits like this allow them to choose or not choose to investigate and pursue different aspects of the world, without me force feeding them an adventure. I'd rather give them five sentences on the item, and see if they're interested or not, than prepare a whole adventure about the barbarians and then discover (after a week of work) they aren't interested in it. I guess my biggest problem with making it relevant right now, is that my players tend to make what they want relvant and skip over what they aren't interested in, this means anything could be relevant to them.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. The DM is going to do more talking than the players. One thing I don't agree with though is the idea that just because I do more work, it somehow beholdens the players to me. I would hope that my players are listening to me because what I'm saying is interesting and exciting. Not because they somehow feel they owe me anything. I don't approach the game in such a mercenary fashion. Their attention is something I earn by being a good DM, not something I expect because I spent time outside of the game prepping.

Yet the opposite camp also promotes that the purpose of the DM is to make sure his players are having fun and cater to this. So isn't this just the DM being "beholden" to the players? Do I owe my players any more than they owe me as a DM? I don't think so. That's why compatible playstyles are important. Everyone should be having fun, and compatibility and/or compromise promotes this. I expect a certain amount of attention in the game, in the same way they expect me to pay attention to the actions they're characters take, or want to pursue (even if I think it's boring).

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I'd rather give them five sentences on the item, and see if they're interested or not, than prepare a whole adventure about the barbarians and then discover (after a week of work) they aren't interested in it.

I am fully behind this. A description of a staff being along the lines of "a three foot knarled branch, ornately decorated with flames and what appears to be the personalized mark of an unknown craftsman" is fine and the way I would want it. It gives an impression of what the staff would do; tells you what it looks like and drops a possable plot hook all in a sentance or two (maybe followed by someone being in awe from recognising the staff to cement the plot hook).

If the DM goes on about the 100 year history of the staff and the extended family of the craftsman simply because we found the staff in a treasure hoard is too much information and (in my opinion) shouldn't be the way to do it.

Tidbits are fine. Multipage essays for apparently random reasons are not fine (for me).

 

[Raven Crowking]

One thing I don't agree with though is the idea that just because I do more work, it somehow beholdens the players to me. I would hope that my players are listening to me because what I'm saying is interesting and exciting. Not because they somehow feel they owe me anything. I don't approach the game in such a mercenary fashion. Their attention is something I earn by being a good DM, not something I expect because I spent time outside of the game prepping.

On top of Imaro's excellent response to this, let me add a few thoughts.

(1) Your doing more work beholdens you to you. You have to make the game worthwhile to you. If you aren't having fun, you are liable to burn out. This might seem mercenary to you, but it is pretty obviously true. In general, if you are not getting more out of a hobby than you put into it, you won't be doing that hobby for long. The same is true for players, btw, which is why if you're a bad DM, you generally won't have players for long. They aren't getting as much out of it as they put into it.

(2) You are breaking the game down too much. Your players might listen to you because your game is overall interesting and exciting, even if every little bit is not....like the Tarrasque fight you mentioned in another thread. It is the overall effect of the game that you are judged by, not the niggling details. However, sometimes niggling details are important to achieve an overall effect.

(3) While in the long run, you earn your players' attention by being a good DM, when you first sit down at the table with new players, you gain that attention because of the position you occupy. You thereafter either reinforce and deepen that respect by being a good DM....or erode it by being otherwise. However, without that initial social contract (we will pay attention to you) the players have no way of learning what sort of DM you are.

What the DM in the article needed was some solid advice on how to build up a relationship with his players that reinforced and deepened their respect for him as DM, while at the same time acknowledging that he needs to fulfill his own needs as a DM or else he will burn out. And, frankly, looking over this thread, I can say with great certainty that there are a large number of EN Worlders who could have crafted a better response than the article gave.

I believe that

The more work you put into something, the more you expect to get out of it​

and

The more responsibility you undertake, the greater leeway you need to be able to meet that responsibility​

are pretty universal truths, applying to far more than RPGs. Indeed, as a DM I reward players who put more into the game because they put more into the game. I imagine that you do, too. When I am at work, I expect to get paid more than I spend going to work, and I expect to have the leeway required to do my job. When I get home, I expect to get more use out of my house than the value I am paying in rent would be worth if I went elsewhere.

This isn't elitism, and it isn't mercenary. It's simple economics, reflecting the most common transactions (some would claim all transactions) that occur in real life. Likewise, I have yet to meet the player who is happy expending 100 gp worth of resources to obtain a 50 gp reward. YMMV, but I very much doubt that it does.


RC

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

On top of Imaro's excellent response to this, let me add a few thoughts.

(1) Your doing more work beholdens you to you. You have to make the game worthwhile to you. If you aren't having fun, you are liable to burn out. This might seem mercenary to you, but it is pretty obviously true. In general, if you are not getting more out of a hobby than you put into it, you won't be doing that hobby for long. The same is true for players, btw, which is why if you're a bad DM, you generally won't have players for long. They aren't getting as much out of it as they put into it.

RC

Exactly. Why on earth would I waste my time and effort on something that isn't fun for me?

 

[Hussar]

So, it's ok to bore my players, and know that I'm doing so so long as I'm having fun, because they "owe" me the attention in return for my efforts preparing the game?

Sorry, I don't play that way. I do the prep because I want to do the prep. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't. I enjoy running a game, not because I have a captive audience, but because running a game well is rewarding to me.

I've become a very, very large fan of the idea of "don't tell, show." If you want me to care about the staff, SHOW me why I should. Rhyming off a lengthy paragraph is not going to make me all that interested frankly, particularly if the last five items we found ALSO had lengthy backgrounds, none of which I really cared about.

The key word here is, of course, lengthy. A three sentence description of a staff is fine. Anyone who wouldn't sit through that is a prat. I'm more then willing to come some distance here. Obviously, as Imaro says, compatible playstyle is important. That compatibility will determine the cut off point for attention span. Mine is honestly fairly short. I've had rather unfortunate experiences, both as a DM and a player, with amateur authors who figure that D&D is the forum to air their latest "art". My patience with inconsequential minutia is very, very short.

In other words, Harn is certainly NOT the system for me.

 

[Imaro]

So, it's ok to bore my players, and know that I'm doing so so long as I'm having fun, because they "owe" me the attention in return for my efforts preparing the game?

Sorry, I don't play that way. I do the prep because I want to do the prep. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't. I enjoy running a game, not because I have a captive audience, but because running a game well is rewarding to me.

Okay, so let me ask you this. What do you do when another player is interested in something and you're not? Is it wrong to bore you, even though the other player(s) aren't. If players are really into their characters won't there always be times when they may be doing something, finding something out, or interested in something that everyone else may not be? Is the DM any different than this player? Why are YOU as one particular player more important than everyone else, including the DM?

Now, if what you're saying or doing bores everyone at the table...by all means cut it short or find players that enjoy that type of stuff. The problem in the article is...some of the players are listening and are interested, but they are, along with the DM, immediately discounted.

I've become a very, very large fan of the idea of "don't tell, show." If you want me to care about the staff, SHOW me why I should. Rhyming off a lengthy paragraph is not going to make me all that interested frankly, particularly if the last five items we found ALSO had lengthy backgrounds, none of which I really cared about.

That's good for you, and hopefully you wouldn't get into a game where history and background are important, though maybe not within the next 2 minutes, to the overall story or connecting of overarching pieces. Otherwise this probably wouldn't be the type of game you would enjoy. Does that make you more right than a player who does? I've run these types of games with my players and they can be quite rewarding...especially if you have players that like problem solving, mysteries, wide ranging plots, or even the freedom to pursue whatever aspect of the campaign they want. It's alot easier than handing them a 300 page campaign bible so they can decide what aspects interest their characters and what don't.

Have you never done anything in a game that bored one or more other players? Did you think about them when you did it, and how you were stepping on their fun?