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

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Ah, well yes, bad article. I doubt anyone here will really disagree with that.

 

[Mark]

The more often you want to play, and the fewer players/GMs available in your area, the more often you might have to compromise. I'll run one-shots and tourneys that aren't necessarily my ideal game but I tend to be more picky when it comes to campaign/regular games.

 

[pallandrome]

Personally, I DO get to choose my players. If a player is rude to me or the other players, I will eject him from the game (not saying that this is the appropriate response in this case). I'm a person too, and if I'm not having fun, I'm not going to be running the game. BUT, like a player who always has to be the center of attention is obnoxious, so too is a GM that must always read every prescripted line he's written.

I find a lot of games to be more interesting if I give the players plenty of rope to hang themselves with. For example, if I were GMing the game described in the article, I would have allowed the warlock to grab the item, and to die, if he wasn't willing to make a Know:Arc check first (I wouldn't put such an item in the game in the first place, as the warlock is bound to touch the damn thing eventually, but that's for another time). I usually describe a paragraph or two of surroundings at the beginning of a scene, and if the players want further detail, they'll ask when it comes up. If they interrupt, and want to get on with things, that's fine, but if the scenery bites them in the ass later somehow, I'll not be taking the blame for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Show, don't tell.

Ah, those three little words.

Y'know, the DM who is writing in does need a bit of a wake-up call. I agree with ""My art is being ignored?" Please.", from the article, wholeheartedly. Similarly, he gets to the heart of it with what is quoted below.

Needing to hold too much information on the front end, when the organizing systems that hold it together don't come until the back end, is a bad strategy. My other field is education, and that approach is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do if you want people to learn, absorb, retain, and be able to use information. Because D&D is set up as a sort of mystery/exploration game where you gradually pick up information and put it together as you go, you can't dump everything on the players up front without spoiling the dramatic tension you're trying to build.

And I do like this moment:

DMs sometimes assume that the effort they put into a world or a setting or a character or an encounter or an item somehow earns them the right to validation by the players. Ask any comedian -- you can work on a joke all week, but if the audience doesn't laugh, then it wasn't funny, no matter how much effort you poured into it.

And then it ends with some pretty solid advice:

Dial back a little on the creating and spend more time listening to what players want. Then, when you do create things, you can do it with a good sense of what will interest them instead of what you think will interest them. When you dive into history and backstory in the campaign, don't overdo it. Make it relevant to the characters and their interests, and make it relevant to the mechanics of the game.

It gets a little lost in the "player entitlement" kind of talk, but the core here is some very good advice, and it boils down to "Show, don't tell." The players need the item to be *relevant* to them.

Now, there are many different types of players, some who will jump at a world's history and lore, but even there, giving it out all at once isn't a good idea. Like anything a player wants, you make them *earn* it.

If creating items for D&D is an art, a good artist will not be ignored, because a good artist is always relevant. If you're too wrapped up in your own obsessive geek fantasies to contact the audience for your creation, it is useless, it will be ignored, and only a select few of similarly obsessive geeks will care.

The DMs are not entitled to their players' fascination with the DM's setting in the slightest. But adept DMs can make players fascinated with their setting by making the setting very interactive.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Is the PC who wields it:

- A member of the tribes?
- Have a connection to Horne?
- Have Frolmr's descendant as an enemy?
- Consider himself having a pure heart?

If so, then the player will probably be interested. Otherwise, the player has no connection to the sword. It means nothing to them personally, and the DM has failed to create an item that the PC can be invested in. These are the things that you should keep in mind when creating backstories for equipment.

Seriously? Really even if the character/player doesn't have any of those things going for him to help him connect this this weapon, it still has a purpose it can serve...
- That tribe might just really want this item that is likely straight out of their history and legends.
- They might even have a possible descendant of Horne vying for leadership of the tribe.
- There's every chance that Frost Giants again threaten the safety of the tribe, and the sword could be the only hope for the tribe (assuming the PCs are so un-connected that they don't want to do it).

I mean really, even if the player isn't interested in a +1 flamebrand sword they should be willing to sit on their little ADD hands and see if they gets some plot hooks with those fries.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Seriously? Really even if the character/player doesn't have any of those things going for him to help him connect this this weapon, it still has a purpose it can serve...
- That tribe might just really want this item that is likely straight out of their history and legends.
- They might even have a possible descendant of Horne vying for leadership of the tribe.
- There's every chance that Frost Giants again threaten the safety of the tribe, and the sword could be the only hope for the tribe (assuming the PCs are so un-connected that they don't want to do it).

I mean really, even if the player isn't interested in a +1 flamebrand sword they should be willing to sit on their little ADD hands and see if they gets some plot hooks with those fries.

If the players know about it.

If they don't, then the effort is wasted. I can't cover every possible detail. If the PCs know about the struggles of the northern tribes and then find the sword that could possibly bring them all back together, then it is relevant to the PCs and you've described a scenario that agrees with my assessment. Otherwise, most players will forget the back story by the end of the session.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I mean really, even if the player isn't interested in a +1 flamebrand sword they should be willing to sit on their little ADD hands and see if they gets some plot hooks with those fries.

I think the point is that the history doesn't need to be really revealed until it actually becomes a plot hook, and then, discovering the history becomes an adventure itself.

So it doesn't boil down into "Blah blah blah, I get to kill goblins better, blah blah blah, get on with it."

 

[Wolv0rine]

If they don't, then the effort is wasted. I can't cover every possible detail. If the PCs know about the struggles of the northern tribes and then find the sword that could possibly bring them all back together, then it is relevant to the PCs and you've described a scenario that agrees with my assessment. Otherwise, most players will forget the back story by the end of the session.

Hmm, I’ve found (for myself as a player if nothing else) that an item having a Name tends to prod me to remember it has a history (if that history is available to me). I may forget the particulars, but I tend to remember that there’s something to remember if nothing else. And I mean if you’re going to throw in an item with a nice history and particulars and high points and connect it to a place, I tend to presume (as a player) that the party’s likely to find themselves there at some point in the not-too-distant future.
So yeah, if it never comes up, it was wasted effort. If the players want to know, nothing is wasted effort, however.

I think the point is that the history doesn't need to be really revealed until it actually becomes a plot hook, and then, discovering the history becomes an adventure itself.

So it doesn't boil down into "Blah blah blah, I get to kill goblins better, blah blah blah, get on with it."

But revealing the history in and of itself can be a plot hook. It can prompt the party to go to wherever and check out whatever, or you as the DM can lead them there to let the history become relevant. Just throwing out flavor text to show off doesn’t do anything, it’s about the same as “let me tell you about this character I played once in High School”. But if the players just sit there like dead fish and expect everything to wander up to them and offer them cash and prizes if they will take an interest in this or that then you’ve got you some dead-fish players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It can prompt the party to go to wherever and check out whatever

If it's not relevant to them and they're bored by it, it won't prompt the party to do anything. If it is relevant and they aren't bored by it, then it isn't a problem, because they will be prompted by it.

Just throwing out flavor text to show off doesn’t do anything, it’s about the same as “let me tell you about this character I played once in High School”. But if the players just sit there like dead fish and expect everything to wander up to them and offer them cash and prizes if they will take an interest in this or that then you’ve got you some dead-fish players.

From the letter in the column, it looks like the DM did pretty much exactly that: threw out some flavor text, and then got miffed when no one cared about it and cared instead about what the item could do.

Basically, it's the DM's job to make the campaign world interesting for the players (and their characters), and if that's successful, the players and characters will pay attention. If it's not successful, then they won't. And the letter-writer seemed to be griping that they won't pay attention to his. To which the logical response would be: "Make it more interesting, namely, by showing, not telling, making it more relevant to them."

The article writer threw on some "KEWL POWERZ are what's relevant!" nonsense, but the core lesson seems to be "MAKE them pay attention by having it affect them HERE and NOW."

to which I would add, "Some players will pay attention without that, but that probably shouldn't be expected, and should still be earned in the game."

 

[Imaro]

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.

So you're saying because the DM has the power to cut the players fun short...he should never be bored. That just sucks, I feel like if my pc's are having fun doing something...why should I exert my all powerful DM status (this is SARCASM) because I'm bored. IMHO this doesn't address the issue at all. I'd like to think I and my players are mature enough to realize that certain concesions should be made. There are limits, of course...but you seem to be saying DM's can't be bored because they control everything. I wouldn't want to play in this type of power trip game at all.

Me: Hmmm. let's see what feat do I want this level.
DM: You only get 3 minutes to decide.
Me: What? Why?
DM: Because you picking feats isn't fun for me.
Me: ....See ya.