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

[maddman75]

In my experience, players never care enough about the setting beyond what they need to know to play. It's unfortunate, but not every group is going to be prepared to read a history and geography essay just to play D&D.

Absolutely. This is why setting doesn't really matter. Your players don't really give a crap if they're in the Realms, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, or your funky homebrew. They give a crap about their characters and what's happening to them. A movie or TV show might have some nice sets, but let's face it you aren't going to watch a show just because it has good sets.

A really good show will generally have nice sets, but you aren't going to notice. Its going to become part of the greater whole. Game settings should be the same way.

 

[Imaro]

Why do you consider that to be unfortunate? I'm not being snide here, I'm really curious.

I think it's unfortunate because a richer play experience can often arise if players are willing to "buy in" to the setting. For some rpg's it's a given that the players have to know a minimum about the world to even to make up a character. I enjoy this and have found it ususally results in my players being more proactive because they took the time to understand how the world works and connects, thus the characters they create often have logical connections and goals in the world.

I understand the whole make it relevant to the characters thing, and that isn't what I'm arguing against. What I do take exception to is the "relevant now" mentality expressed in the article and by some posters. Are we really at the point where it has to be instant gratification, all the time. Even Hussar said he read the books in Baldur's Gate, until he realized they weren't relevant...thus he was willing to give the information a chance to become relevant...and that's really my point. The players in the article (and yes we don't have the whole story, but going off what's there) don't even give the information a chance to become relevant. It's this mentality that I'm arguing about, the inability of a player to listen to 5 sentences and see if the info is relevant...or, once again if they can get off their keister and make it relevant. When I play(the few times I get to) I like having information that may not lead to something when I go into the next room of the dungeon, but gives me options or arises later in the game.

This also brings me to another point...how can you run a mystery/noir adventure...such as supported by the Eberron setting when everything has to be "relevant now". This genre is about dark secrets that are slowly revealed and conspiracies that are labyrinthine. The characters may not think the information relevant(which is one of the problems with the whole...if the players don't think it's relevant, then it's not...sentiment) but two sessions later when everything is revealed and they need that information, then what? Then the players are claiming the DM didn't make it obvious enough, or the clues were to hard to find, or whatever else allows them to justify their position, even though you put it in their laps and they rejected it.

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely. This is why setting doesn't really matter. Your players don't really give a crap if they're in the Realms, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, or your funky homebrew. They give a crap about their characters and what's happening to them. A movie or TV show might have some nice sets, but let's face it you aren't going to watch a show just because it has good sets.

A really good show will generally have nice sets, but you aren't going to notice. Its going to become part of the greater whole. Game settings should be the same way.

But different settings facilitate different types of play, don't they? I mean there's a BIG difference between the way Call of Cthulhu, Exalted and D&D play out. I mean even just dealing with D&D...Planescape vs. Dark Sun promote, through their settings, totally different focuses, types of adventures, and characters. The problem is, this only works if everyone playing is willing to "buy in" to the setting. Luckily my players usually do, but I think that the laziness of some players really sucks. Why can't you read a one or two page intro before making up a character? Especially if I send it to you a week before. I think DM's are really starting to facilitate this type of play, at least in D&D, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing or should just be accepted. If I spend hours making up an adventure...you can't spend a one time grand total of 2 minutes reading an intro? Come on, I'm not asking you to read a 300pg book, and I've taken the time to summarize it for you...show a little respect for my efforts and just read the thing.

 

[maddman75]

This also brings me to another point...how can you run a mystery/noir adventure...such as supported by the Eberron setting when everything has to be "relevant now". This genre is about dark secrets that are slowly revealed and conspiracies that are labyrinthine. The characters may not think the information relevant(which is one of the problems with the whole...if the players don't think it's relevant, then it's not...sentiment) but two sessions later when everything is revealed and they need that information, then what? Then the players are claiming the DM didn't make it obvious enough, or the clues were to hard to find, or whatever else allows them to justify their position, even though you put it in their laps and they rejected it.

I read an interesting article on the Forge on how to do exactly that. I've not got a chance to run it, but it sounds like a hoot.

In most mystery stories, the detective will spot seemingly innocuous clues and put them together into a whole, figuring out whodunit. Now, how do you run this experience in an RPG? You can either only tell them the relevent clues, which can seem like the GM is handing it to them, or you can tell them every little detail and hope the put it together. Also is the problem of rolling to find clues - if they blow a roll, does the game grind to a halt as they hunt for a vital clue? Unfun.

This idea is to run it differently. The GM knows the answer, we aren't talking about moving goalposts here. Instead of calling for checks immediately or flooding the players with details, they instead look at what's going on and come up with a theory. Then they roll their search checks and see if they can find clues to support or reject the theory. Then they come up with another theory. This continues until they find the killer/thief/whatever.

 

[Imaro]

This idea is to run it differently. The GM knows the answer, we aren't talking about moving goalposts here. Instead of calling for checks immediately or flooding the players with details, they instead look at what's going on and come up with a theory. Then they roll their search checks and see if they can find clues to support or reject the theory. Then they come up with another theory. This continues until they find the killer/thief/whatever.

Intriguing. But, what if they come up with the right theory and blow the roll? Thus their theory is not supported by the evidence as they see it? It seems to have the same problem of grinding to a halt if that happens.

 

[delericho]

Intriguing. But, what if they come up with the right theory and blow the roll? Thus their theory is not supported by the evidence as they see it? It seems to have the same problem of grinding to a halt if that happens.

I think the argument was that there was no "right theory" at the outset, but rather that the success or failure of the Search checks would determine that.

So, premise: there's been a murder.

Theory 1: The butler did it.

Roll: Fails. Okay, so the butler didn't do it.

Theory 2: The wife did it.

Roll: Partial success. The wife was involved, but that's not the whole story.

Theory 3: An accomplice?

Roll: Fail. Nope, that's not it.

Theory 4: Possession?

Roll: Success. Ah, so that's what was going on.

And so it goes.

 

[Imaro]

I think the argument was that there was no "right theory" at the outset, but rather that the success or failure of the Search checks would determine that.

So, premise: there's been a murder.

Theory 1: The butler did it.

Roll: Fails. Okay, so the butler didn't do it.

Theory 2: The wife did it.

Roll: Partial success. The wife was involved, but that's not the whole story.

Theory 3: An accomplice?

Roll: Fail. Nope, that's not it.

Theory 4: Possession?

Roll: Success. Ah, so that's what was going on.

And so it goes.

Yeah, but he specifically said the GM knows the answer, which led me to believe there is a right answer...otherwise how is this solving a mystery? It seems kind of boring the way your describing and would take all of 3 minutes of hollering out suspects and rolling. In fact they could just take 10 and announce who did it. Where is the actual mystery/conspiracy at?

 

[delericho]

Yeah, but he specifically said the GM knows the answer,

Oops, yes, I missed that. Kinda kills my example dead. In that case, I don't know how it would be done.

 

[Li Shenron]

So my question is...shouldn't the GM/DM get to have his fun as well.

Absolutely

Player not having fun -> player leaves the game -> game continues with the others
DM not having fun -> DM stops DMing -> game over, people goes home to play PS2

More seriously, does anybody remember that D&D is a game for the DM too? She's not there to do a sort of social service, but to have a nice time as well. Plus, DMing requires more time out-of-session (including some parts that may not be enjoyed, but are still needed -> for me it's doing creatures calculations for instance), and more attention/effort during game, since a mistake of the DM can cause problem to anyone.

In my (not so many) years of D&D, I've been probably 50% player and 50% DM. I've played with other DMs that used settings, house rules or simply DMing style that were not my favourite, but never a single time I pretended that they changed it... I think that some mutual adjustment to each other's expectation should be the norm, like in every other type of human relationships... don't gamers have relationships too?

Of course part of the fun for a DM is also to see their players enjoy her creations, but that doesn't mean to turn into a DM-w***e (censored for Eric's Grandma's sake).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think that the laziness of some players really sucks. Why can't you read a one or two page intro before making up a character? Especially if I send it to you a week before.

Several years ago, I ran a oneoff for a tournament where I had lots of little info handouts on bits of paper, each a short paragraph. The players didn't read 'em. I learnt my lesson. All important information must be communicated verbally. Written material is an optional extra.

For a game I'm currently preparing to play in, the DM wrote a fairly long email about the world and char gen rules. I read it all several times, cause I can get quite enthused by that sort of stuff, and I've already got ideas for several different PCs. But I know some of the players won't read it. People are different. Some players just get more into that type of thing, some don't do anything outside of session time. I think groups need a range of personality types to work, they can't (and shouldn't) all be anal like me.