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

[frankthedm]

We should keep in mind that RPG's work better when the participants indulge each other from time to time, before we get into a detailed discussion of DM'ing techniques.

What is even more important is to keep in mind that the corporation that published that article has more interest in boosting PHB sales than DMG sales.

 

[Imaro]

The "may come in handy someday" element is good! However, it is probably good to use it sparingly and in a way that is memorable, more than an off the cuff explanation that will probably be forgotten. We didn't know the history of Bilbo's ring, after all, until it was important to the story. Likewise, there's no reason to tell the players the history of the sword until said history can affect the game.

As an example, say the PCs found the ancient sword wherever. Then, later, when traveling in the frozen northern village, the villagers recognize the sword, treating the PCs as honored guests, the NPCs telling the PCs about the whole pure heart thing and the tale of Fromir's death. Good stuff, and something the players will remember! Now you've ingrained the history of the item into the players much better than telling them, because they have concrete reason to appreciate the sword, as found in play.

Now, they can do all that stuff you want them to. Find out if their heart is pure, try and reunite the tribes using the sword as a banner, and if the descendant of the frost giant appears, they won't have to remember back to the two sentences you gave them four months ago offhandedly. They can look back on the time they were treated as heroes in that village while traveling through the harsh norther climes.

So, I'm not saying you shouldn't use history. I'm saying your approach to it is wrong. Or, at least, not as interesting as it could be. That way you get your cool history and the players are invested in it because they want to be. Because you invested their PCs. Not because they're playing nice with you. But, because its fun!

ThirdWizard, I get what you're saying and totally see your point...which leads me to another problem with the article. It doesn't help the DM with techniques on approaching the info in different manners. IMHO, and I may be way off base, to sum up the article...

Hey DM, your players don't care about history or such when it comes to their items...They're the players so get with the program...

Now my issue is...how do you know it's not relevant, when (again from my reading of the article) you don't even give him a chance to inform you. I mean we don't know if these magic items and their history had a very strong tie to the actual dungeon the DM created. I got the impression they might be, since Noah reiterates that he took alot of time in designing these elements, though only he knows if what I'm proposing is true or not. The point I'm making is...at least be willing to compromise where, if it's not a 50,000 word essay then as a player you are willing to at the very least listen. Just because the relevancy isn't smacking you over the head at this exact point and time...doesn't mean it isn't around the corner, or that you can't build off the elements even as a player.

The whole...it bores a player argument...IMHO smacks of the idea that I as DM can't have fun unless it somehow is exciting for your character. Once again I reiterate that there will be slow times for everyone in the game, but part of playing D&D is giving everyone a chance to shine in the area they enjoy...even the DM.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes, it's a compromise; not everyone finds the same things fun. That said, I think that more GMs and Players should seek out others that better fit their style of play and enjoyment than not.

If I had players that were bored to tears after three sentences of exposition or didn't want to know more about the world and how it affects then, I'd look for a better class of player if it was within my power. If I had a GM that would not shut up about the item or wanted me to read a fifteen page history of the sword I just got, I'd look for another GM. Moderation is the key; don't be too long-winded, but be clear and concise. If being clear and consise means the occassional 20 minutes or so explaining the political climate or how magic works or the scope of power of the Great Houses, then so be it. Things like that can and should impact the adventure and the PC's anyway.

 

[ThirdWizard]

ThirdWizard, I get what you're saying and totally see your point...which leads me to another problem with the article. It doesn't help the DM with techniques on approaching the info in different manners. IMHO, and I may be way off base, to sum up the article...

Oh, yeah, I agree. Terrible article. The guy obviously isn't looking to improve the DM's game, and I agree with Frank that the article is terribly biased in favor of players for reasons purely of money.

I do, however, think that DMs get too caught up in their own campaign's history to the determent of the game. I think the article does contain some truth in it, and I do think that players indulging the DM when something isn't interesting to them is pointless, since these things can be and should be fun for everyone without too much difficulty.

The whole...it bores a player argument...IMHO smacks of the idea that I as DM can't have fun unless it somehow is exciting for your character. Once again I reiterate that there will be slow times for everyone in the game, but part of playing D&D is giving everyone a chance to shine in the area they enjoy...even the DM.

The DM isn't shining, though. He's being boring (as far as the players are concerned), he's putting forth information that will be forgotten most likely before the end of the session, and he is only hurting his own game. Not intentionally of course. But, there don't have to be slow times for the PCs for the DM to enjoy himself! The DM can indulge his own love of crafting a campaign setting and make it fun for the players. There's no reason to think it has to be otherwise.

The DM can shine through awesome combats, through fun NPCs, through all sorts of things. This isn't about shining. This is about the DM wanting the players to be interested in his creation. And, he or she should want that. But, there are good ways to go about it, and there are ways to go about it that won't work. A player who indulges the DM and pretends to be interested isn't helping the DM.

 

[Imaro]

For me, one of the most noticeable differences between playing and GMing is how much rarer it is to be bored as a GM than as a player. As a player, I find it not uncommon, especially when another player is having his PC go off on his own, or taking time over a matter I consider inconsequential. As a GM that just can't happen because I have so much power over pacing. If I find an encounter is becoming tiresome I just gloss over it, instead of covering it in detail. If an argument is dragging on I can just tell the players to shut the f-ck up, which is harder to do when you're a player yourself. In short, I find it practically impossible to be bored as a GM.

So for that reason, I'm a lot more sympathetic with bored players than bored GMs. I really can't see how it could a problem for a GM.

So you've never had your players take 5 or 10 minutes to plan something, an assault on a fortified area or something similar?

You've never had players leveling up, looking for the cool feat they want, adjusting stats etc., while you wait for them to finish?

You've never had players take time to divy up treasure amongst themselves?

You've never had players argue amongst themselves about, ideas, how to proceed, etc.?



I got more examples, but I don't see the point if you've never experienced these things...All I can say is you are a lucky DM.

 

[Faraer]

You've got to DM for the players you have, not the players you'd like to have.

You can choose the players you have. I'd much rather not DM than DM for players who aren't interested in the campaign's setting and its history. 'I want it! I want it! I want it!', relegating everything except your PC to 'window dressing', is abnormal, childish egotism. Players who do appreciate a detailed, vibrant, 'as if real' campaign world are not so hard to find.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You can choose the players you have. I'd much rather not DM than DM for players who aren't interested in the campaign's setting and its history. 'I want it! I want it! I want it!', relegating everything except your PC to 'window dressing', is abnormal, childish egotism. Players who do appreciate a detailed, vibrant, 'as if real' campaign world are not so hard to find.

I believe that's really a straw man. There's a difference between not being engaged by exposition and not caring about the campaign setting.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a DM, the 'down' moments when you're not involved in what's going on are significantly rarer than for a player. DMs simply talk more than players do.

In all four cases you mentioned, a DM has the power to cut things short if he's getting bored. Just tell the levelling player he has 1 minute to decide on a feat. Or continue the action with the feat unselected as yet. Whatever you want, the options are many. You have no need to choose the 'continue to be bored' option.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Players who do appreciate a detailed, vibrant, 'as if real' campaign world are not so hard to find.

In middle school?

 

[Faraer]

I believe that's really a straw man.

I think so too -- it doesn't match anyone I've GMed for. But it's quoted direct from the article, which suggests DMs' and players' wants are necessarily at odds, which is what I disagree with.