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

[Raven Crowking]

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, they don't play that way. They play because they want to play. If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't. They enjoy playing in a game, not because they never have to listen to the DM, but because playing in a game well is rewarding to them.

As attempting to capture your player's interest and reward your players for playing is part of good DMing, so is attempting to capture your DM's (and other players') interest and rewarding them for playing part of good playing.

Period.

If there is any statement about RPGs that I can make as an absolute and universal statement, that one was it.

Kahuna Burger's thread, In Praise of Metagaming, describes this very well. Much better than I do, in fact. I am rather surprised that you are having such a hard time with this idea, because you clearly "get it" from one side of the screen, if not the other.

EDIT: And, if you really can't get it, answer these four questions: Do you players ever indulge you? If so, why? Does any part of the game ever bore you? If so, why do you do it? (And if you think that you are the one uber DM whose players never indulge him, and who is never bored with any aspect of game prep or play, I'll scour EN World for your posts that demonstrate otherwise! )

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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?

I view it as you have to find a happy medium, sometimes there is no medium to be had though. If as far as they can accommodate my play style is still going to leave me bored and unsatisfied the only sound option is to quit playing with that group. And the opposite holds true of course. Nobody owes anyone anything.

 

[Doug Sundseth]

I think there's a point that's been missed in all this:

The "100-year history of the staff" is known to the PCs how, exactly? Often the irrelevant information (to use the formulation above) is information that wouldn't be available to the PCs anyway. It's clear that some GMs like to build this sort of information into the background of their games, and having done that work want to make sure their players find out. That's usually a bad reason to deliver an expository lump.

Note that this isn't an argument for not creating that sort of backstory if that's what the GM wants to do. (It might be an inefficient use of time, but that's a different thread.) If the Bard in the group hears that the staff "is ornamented with designs that look to be at least 100 years out of style" and decides to do that bardic lore thing, then it's clear that his character (and presumably the player) wants to know. That's the time to present your expository "brilliance". (Preferably in verse, of course.

One of the things that I find myself doing is trying to work out at least the rudimentary economics of areas. I like places that make sense to me. While a tiny bit of that work might be visible to the players, I'd never consider delivering an essay to my players on the relative profitability of siltstone creation and stone shipment by barge. (Well, I might consider ... no.)

 

[LostSoul]

Sorry, they don't play that way. They play because they want to play. If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't. They enjoy playing in a game, not because they never have to listen to the DM, but because playing in a game well is rewarding to them.

So the answer is to play with people who like the same thing you do?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think there's a point that's been missed in all this:

The "100-year history of the staff" is known to the PCs how, exactly?

I don't think that was missed. It was covered earlier, and offered no real bone of contention. It seems that we all agree that the DM in question needed advice about how and when to give players this sort of information. Most of us, I think, agree that the SMG article did a poor job of this, because it didn't even make the attempt.

Hell, when you have some of the people who've agreed with me on this thread agreeing with me, you know that there is no possibility of sqeezing out a single iota of reasonable conflict!

In fact, the only things that we don't seem to all agree on are playstyle issues (how much exposition should the DM provide, and how immediately relevant must it be) and whether or not the DM is a "special case" in terms of normal civil behaviour at a game (i.e., must the players show the DM the same degree of consideration that they expect?).

That the article seems to imply that the DM need be shown no consideration rankles. That the DM is given no advice for how to integrate his reasons for playing into the game, and making them interesting to the players insofar as possible, rankles more. That the players in question are effectively encouraged in their antisocial behaviour both toward the DM and toward the other players rankles the most.

IMHO, at least.

It was a really bad article, one of the worst SMGs (and I don't often agree with SMG anyway, so this is at the bottom of a stinking heap for me).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So the answer is to play with people who like the same thing you do?

Not at all, though it would probably help.

The answer, IMHO, is to game with people who are capable of showing each other mutual consideration. Because they like the game overall, and because they know that there are going to be parts that they are less happy with (but that interest others in the group), they do their best to enjoy the "down" moments and make them better for those that do like them.

This means that the hack-n-slasher doesn't begrudge the role-player the chance to talk to people, and the role-player doesn't throw a fit when combat starts. This means that the DM allows the PCs to go in the directions that interest them, and the players allow the DM to tell them what they see/hear/know.

Everyone knows that everyone at the table is there to enjoy the game, and they work not only for their own enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of others. As much as possible. With the understanding that sometimes someone is having a bad day, or is coming to the table after an argument with the boss/spouse/hairdresser. It isn't so difficult to make allowances for each other, to support each other, and to try to make the game better.

Your PCs might be out to kill each other; the players (DM included) should be cooperating to make a better game so that everyone gets at least as much out of it as they put into it.

That, IMHO, is a pretty damn reasonable expectation.

 

[Imaro]

Not at all, though it would probably help.

The answer, IMHO, is to game with people who are capable of showing each other mutual consideration. Because they like the game overall, and because they know that there are going to be parts that they are less happy with (but that interest others in the group), they do their best to enjoy the "down" moments and make them better for those that do like them.

This means that the hack-n-slasher doesn't begrudge the role-player the chance to talk to people, and the role-player doesn't throw a fit when combat starts. This means that the DM allows the PCs to go in the directions that interest them, and the players allow the DM to tell them what they see/hear/know.

Everyone knows that everyone at the table is there to enjoy the game, and they work not only for their own enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of others. As much as possible. With the understanding that sometimes someone is having a bad day, or is coming to the table after an argument with the boss/spouse/hairdresser. It isn't so difficult to make allowances for each other, to support each other, and to try to make the game better.

Your PCs might be out to kill each other; the players (DM included) should be cooperating to make a better game so that everyone gets at least as much out of it as they put into it.

That, IMHO, is a pretty damn reasonable expectation.

Yeah...and...uhm...well. That about covers my feelings on the matter...so...yeah what RC said.

 

[LostSoul]

Not at all, though it would probably help.

Hmm, see, I think I have higher standards for fun in an RPG these days. I only want to play with people who like the same thing I do. (I can change my goals for play, so with one group I want a certain type of game, and with another I want a different type.) I don't have to worry about compromising my fun for the other players (including the DM), because we all get excited by the same thing.

I see where you're coming from, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hmm, see, I think I have higher standards for fun in an RPG these days. I only want to play with people who like the same thing I do.

Personally, I find that if I go to movies with people who like different things, it expands my enjoyment of (and appreciation for) movies overall. RPGs are no different.

YMMV, though.

RC

 

[Doug Sundseth]

I don't think that was missed. It was covered earlier, and offered no real bone of contention. It seems that we all agree that the DM in question needed advice about how and when to give players this sort of information. Most of us, I think, agree that the SMG article did a poor job of this, because it didn't even make the attempt.

I have to disagree. The original statement in the article (as I read it, anyway) and many of the examples here (which are arguably strawmen, of course) assume exposition that is inherently unknowable by the PCs. I think that's an issue that hasn't been well explored either in this thread or in the article. I also think it's a pervasive problem among a certain sort of GM (which might include me, though I try to avoid that pitfall).

Hell, when you have some of the people who've agreed with me on this thread agreeing with me, you know that there is no possibility of sqeezing out a single iota of reasonable conflict!

(Logically unsupportable, of course, but funny nonetheless.) FWIW, I agree with much of what you've said in other comments in this thread.

In fact, the only things that we don't seem to all agree on are playstyle issues (how much exposition should the DM provide, and how immediately relevant must it be) and whether or not the DM is a "special case" in terms of normal civil behaviour at a game (i.e., must the players show the DM the same degree of consideration that they expect?).

Presenting unknowable information (whether extended exegesis on PC genealogy, expository lumps about the history of magic items or architecture, or cut scenes showing the actions of NPC far away) is certainly a playstyle issue. It's also possible to do it well, but IME it's really unlikely for an inexperienced GM or player to do it well. In the instant case, I think it's reasonable to advise against it categorically. (See also: dream sequences.)

That the article seems to imply that the DM need be shown no consideration rankles. That the DM is given no advice for how to integrate his reasons for playing into the game, and making them interesting to the players insofar as possible, rankles more. That the players in question are effectively encouraged in their antisocial behaviour both toward the DM and toward the other players rankles the most.

That's not at all what I got out of the article. What I saw was an experienced GM providing blanket advice to an inexperienced GM. While that advice isn't universally applicable, I think it was good for the intended audience, at least in the sense of being a decent starting place. (If you caveat your advice with a naive audience, it's very easy for the caveats to swallow the rule. "Drinking too much alcohol is a bad idea ... though drinking some can have health benefits.", can too easily become, "Drinking's not so bad." This dramatically reduces the important impact of the basic statement.)

IMHO, at least.

It was a really bad article, one of the worst SMGs (and I don't often agree with SMG anyway, so this is at the bottom of a stinking heap for me).

As you might have gathered, I disagree. (I suppose that makes me an unreasonable person, but there you go.) I think it was fairly decent advice for a naive audience, subject to substantial modification with increasing experience. Given the demographics at their site and the limitations on the time of the writer, that seems appropriate to me.