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

[delericho]

Wow. Here's a feature I won't be reading regularly.

I've certainly seen a fair amount of bad advice given in the "Save my Game" feature on Wizards.com, much of which seems to lean a bit too far towards the "player's entitlement" end of the scale.

That said, I can't disagree with everything stated in the article. It is certainly the case that the players won't be as interested in the world as the DM, and if the DM expects them to be, then he's setting himself up for disappointment. Likewise, preparing a long paragraph of exposition on a random item (rather than one the PCs have deliberately researched) is likely too much.

But that doesn't mean there should be no setting exposition - just that it should be done sparingly.

One thing I have found works very well with making a setting come alive is a sort of "Easter egg" view of campaign detail, where you throw out a nugget or two fairly frequently, and leave it to the players to either put it together (and enjoy making those connections), but where players who aren't interested, or aren't paying attention, can still play the game just as well.

For example, when the PCs visit the village of "Kargoth's Stand", you casually mention that everyone is wearing some item of green clothing. Later on, they find Kargoth's tomb, which describes an artifact he used, a sceptre of great magical power. Later, when researching this item, they find that it is called the Jade Sceptre. Furthermore, the sceptre was lost near the site where Kargoth made his last stand. (Okay, that's not an example I think I would actually use, but it gives the idea - little details are revealed over time that, individually, are just dressing and don't take too much time to give out, but when taken as a whole they build a consistent world.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think that a roleplaying game is give and take...There are alot of things concerned with PC's that bore me, specifically as a GM. I find leveling up to be one of the most boring aspects of the game for me as a GM, but I deal with it because it is interesting and fun for my players. Why shouldn't I get a minute or two to tell you a little about my world once in awhile. It's a courtesy thing and I think that too many players aren't willing to extend the same courtesy GM's give them...back to the GM.

So basically you're saying at least one person should be bored at all times?

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?

 

[jimpaladin]

I guess this is where I see 3.x now. In the olden days, you would have had to cast identify on the sword and that would have allowed for me as DM to throw the history into it if it was well known. otherwise it was a +1 sword with a special power.

Now you don't hear bards use knowledge(ancient) or Wizards using knowledge(arcana) or even casting an identify spell. it's more of give me what I want to know now. IMC I make the history of the weapon tied to the pc's as if they find a sword they must use it for a time before you can discover it's powers. They must be at least of masterwork quality to begin to work toward a +1 weapon.

I work with my players to find out what would be an awesome weapon to them and incoprate it into why they adventure. Same with a wizards staff. I know I not making alot of sense Basically, you as a player get to "design" your own magic weapon. It just doesn't start til you get a masterwork weapon, then your desires are matched with what you do to over time produce a weapon to your liking. same with armor, and wizards staves.

 

[Imaro]

Gothmog...now that's a newsletter I'd subscribe to.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I love it when I'm in a game and this DM does this, and my players enjoy discovering legends or the history of items they have or have had contact with.

That might work for you, but it doesn't for the players in the article. You've got to DM for the players you have, not the players you'd like to have.

 

[delericho]

IMC I make the history of the weapon tied to the pc's as if they find a sword they must use it for a time before you can discover it's powers. They must be at least of masterwork quality to begin to work toward a +1 weapon.

I work with my players to find out what would be an awesome weapon to them and incoprate it into why they adventure. Same with a wizards staff. I know I not making alot of sense

Actually, you make a lot of sense. I do almost the same thing, except that instead of tailoring just the right item for the PCs to 'find', I generally allow them to purchase the items they want. A lot of people decry the "magic item Walmart" aspect of 3.X, but I do find that one aspect, at least, quite useful.

That said, I'm also a huge fan of the concept of Weapons of Legacy (if not the precise implementation), and would be very interested in a similar system where the powers aren't fixed when the item is first found, but rather added later as appropriate. Of course, a large part of that is already inherent in the item creation rules.

 

[Imaro]

So basically you're saying at least one person should be bored at all times?

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?

You totally missed the point of my post. It's not that the majority of the game is, or should be boring, but that certain aspects just are, depending on whether you are a player or GM. I mean it can even happen amongst players who enjoy different things as well. If I have a hack n slasher and a player who likes to speak to people and play out social interaction, inevitably in order to cater to both there will be times where one is bored. Should I only cater to one? No, so why should the player/DM divide be any different? My point was balance and compromise can lead to a less extreme effect.

 

[Nifft]

It should be a compromise only if I am not in a position of power.

Realpolitikically yours, -- N

 

[Imaro]

Actually, you make a lot of sense. I do almost the same thing, except that instead of tailoring just the right item for the PCs to 'find', I generally allow them to purchase the items they want. A lot of people decry the "magic item Walmart" aspect of 3.X, but I do find that one aspect, at least, quite useful.

That said, I'm also a huge fan of the concept of Weapons of Legacy (if not the precise implementation), and would be very interested in a similar system where the powers aren't fixed when the item is first found, but rather added later as appropriate. Of course, a large part of that is already inherent in the item creation rules.

You know, earthdawn had a great system for this. You had to research, and discover key events that the weapon had been a part of (it's legend) in order to use different tiers of it's power. They also had rules for turning your own weapons magical through performing legendary acts with them...that really was a cool game.

 

[Imaro]

That might work for you, but it doesn't for the players in the article. You've got to DM for the players you have, not the players you'd like to have.

Sooo, no compromise...only players should be having fun? Wow I would hate to GM a game with players that thought like this. Perhaps that's why very few people ever step up or try they're hand at DM'ing...I mean a line like this makes me want to quit DM'ing and just play, cause that's where it's at....

Dance puppet DM...dance to our tune...

Couldn't you argue that players should adapt their playstyle to the DM they have and not the DM they want to have just as easily? I mean I'm just saying...