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

[Imaro]

I just got through reading the new "save my game" article on the WotC site, found here...www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20070720 and I have to say I find myself a little conflicted on whether I agree with the answer given or not. So my question is...shouldn't the GM/DM get to have his fun as well. Yes it may be boring, at times, for the players to listen to history or backstory or whatever...but doesn't the GM deserve to have his fun.

Shouldn't players at least show a little interest in what he's created since, unlike them, the GM doesn't get a character to express his creativity and ideas through...his only outlet are his creations. I mean the GM has to show interest in the players characters, build encounters so they can use their abilities, further their individual stories, etc. This can hamper his ideas and fun for a particular game session, since he may have a cool encounter but realize the players aren't prepared for it...or something along these lines.

I guess in the end I'm asking, shouldn't(totally assuming a reasonable amount of info dump.) players at least make a token effort to "experience" the GM's creation. I mean they can talk about their cool builds, and backgrounds, etc. so why shouldn't the GM get a turn with his "cool world". Will it really kill players to listen to five sentences on the background of something, or a paragraph to introduce the campaign? I feel that as much work as a GM puts into running, tracking and organizing a game...this isn't too much to ask of players. I understand it might be boring...but so is listening to your kewl build, or what feat you'll take next, or even the class your going to take next level, for the umpteenth time...especially since I don't have my own character to discuss.

It just seems, IMHO this is a really selfish reaction on the end of the players(once again if the info is kept to a reasionable level) that shouldn't be promoted or excused. I could be just a selfish as a DM...I don't care about what feats, skills, etc. you took. I'm running the adventure I want to because it's fun for me. I think this attitude in players or DM's is a bad thing. A better answer, IMHO, is definitely a compromise, unless you all have agreed to play a beer and pretzels type of game. YMMV of course, but I was just wondering what other GM's and players think...in fact I think it would be cool if anyone decides to reply, they put whether they DM more or play more.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

IIRC, two sentences of boxed text is considered pretty much the upper limit; I know it's what I try to stick to. Anything beyond that and the typical player's eyes start to gloss over. GM narration (as described in the Save My Game article) is usually not distinguishable from boxed text if you're a player - especially if it's been written down and the GM is reading from it like a script.

Something like the history of an item? That would bore me to TEARS.

What's more, I think it would bore most PCs to tears. Conan wouldn't care about the time-lost eons the sword he picked up had lain in a crumbling pre-human ruin, nor the storied legacy of red-mist carnage it wrought in its own day; he would care about how well it could hew the men or monsters surging up the steps scant seconds at his heels.

If you want to involve players in the history of your world - involve their characters. Give them plot hooks (or even railroad them for all I care, but most people don't enjoy being railroaded like I do ) revolving around that history, make it full of important clues that will help them in the here and now. At the very least, have a ghost or spirit or celestial regale them with the information; at least that can be eerie or even a dialog, and potentially more interesting.

Don't hand them an item and then spend several minutes monologuing about it. That's boring even when you're describing something interesting, like a monster or a dangerous environment. When you're describing a magic item? That's going to go wrong on every level.

 

[Hussar]

MoogleEmpMog - I would like to sign up to your newsletter.

I've very much come to the same realization that the players, by and large, couldn't care a whole lot about the campaign setting beyond where the next adventure is. As a player, I know that there is definitely an upper limit to my attention span as well. If it doesn't relate to the adventure at hand, it's likely not all that important at all.

This would be why I advocate so strongly an "adventure first" approach to campaign building. The players, by and large, don't care all that much about the world beyond what directly (or at least indirectly) affects them, so why bother building it?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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

I hope the poor kid doesn't take it to heart. Good way to kill an interest in DMing...

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you want to involve players in the history of your world - involve their characters. Give them plot hooks (or even railroad them for all I care, but most people don't enjoy being railroaded like I do ) revolving around that history, make it full of important clues that will help them in the here and now. At the very least, have a ghost or spirit or celestial regale them with the information; at least that can be eerie or even a dialog, and potentially more interesting.

Nailed it.

The DM in the example is going about it all wrong. He needs to make his item stories important for solving a mission or getting more goodies, something the players will care about. Instead he's bombarding them with a monologue.

 

[Elf Witch]

.

Something like the history of an item? That would bore me to TEARS.

What's more, I think it would bore most PCs to tears. Conan wouldn't care about the time-lost eons the sword he picked up had lain in a crumbling pre-human ruin, nor the storied legacy of red-mist carnage it wrought in its own day; he would care about how well it could hew the men or monsters surging up the steps scant seconds at his heels.

.

I so disagree. I as a player want to know because it adds a richness to the game world. Most of my characters would want to k ow as well. I tend to play curious characters who crave knowledge.

The DM does not have to deliver a 15 minute lecture on the background of the item but some key points about the history of an item can give you a glimpse about the world and can also be used a clues to further the game.

 

[Gilladian]

I think that's what Imaro was saying when he emphasized that the info had to be presented in reasonable sized chunks. Long historical monologues are right out - but if I'm describing a monastery the PCs are approaching, where they hope to interact with important NPCs, the players should be willing to listen to 3-4 sentences while I describe the feeling of the place. If they won't put up with interacting with the scenery/world to that extent, then I'm getting nothing out of the time I spent creating the monastery.

And as a DM, I have the responsibility to feed my players the info in small chunks. One comment about how old, worn and cracked the stone of the buildings is, but how clean and well-tended, can be slipped in and should be listened to by the players. Six can't...

 

[ThirdWizard]

Show, don't tell.

It's a great writing philosophy. It's also very true in D&D. The DM who expounds upon an in game item and expects the players to care is going to generally be dissapointed. A DM who can work the item's history into the flow of the game is going to be far more successful. A DM who reveals a little bit of interesting information about an item, gives the PCs some in game reason for uncovering secret, and rewards them for taking action, is going to do even better, I think.

It's not impossible to get players interested in the world and its backstory. It is practically impossible to get them interested in said world if they never interact with it and are just told about it.

 

[Imaro]

This is the thing...I hear alot of posters claiming the descriptions bore my players, or me. I can understand that, and in no way am I supporting a 5 page monologue on the history of FangReaver the +1 flamebrand sword. But I don't think it should be a one sided affair. 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.

"FangReaver was once the sword of the barbarian king Horne, he used it to slay the Frost Giant Frolmr and unite the tribes of the frozen wastes. It is said the sword burns as bright as the purity of purpose it's wielder has in his heart. It was lost nearly ten years ago, and numerous memebers of the now splintered tribes search for it."

Is that really too much to listen to, without interupting me and asking what does it do? I have a real problem with the Identify spell in this aspect...it just reveals game mechanics and that just doesn't feel right to me. So you've cast a spell and I answer, it is a +1 flamebrand...IMHO that sucks all the magic out of magic and has reduced what should be a magical and important item to...bonuses.

In the end I feel that the DM should cater his game to his players, but isn't he suppose to have fun to? If creating his world is fun, does listening to a few passages like the one above every so often really kill the players? I mean you're getting someone to run a game for you every week, two weeks, a month or whatever, who doesn't really get an opportunity to involve himself in the intricacies of character building, and development, Instead he redirects this creative aspect into the world. Now players get to show off their character's abilities, desires, goals, feelings, basically all the creativity they've decided to put into their character, in the game all the time, while a GM is suppose to keep his own creativity to himself (unless the players want to hear about it)? Just doesn't seem fair IMHO. There has to be a common ground here, and I really see this as kind of selfish on the part of the player.

 

[Gothmog]

The writer of that article really does come across as a jerk. Giving an item a history does help tie the character and player more to the world, especially if he is recognized as the weilder of Stormhammer, or the destroyer of the Infernal Apparatus of Thurzuul. 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. Now, I'm not advocating writing up a 1 or 2 page description for the item, but at least give it 2 or 3 sentences of who made it, has used it, and what its been used for. Also, integrate the item into an upcoming adventure- have some challenge that is MUCH easier if the PCs are creative and used the item to help. This makes the item more relevant to the PC, and not just a tool. Too many items in D&D are just +1 keen flaming burst greatswords- they are simply a tool and a powerup. In contrast in legends and fiction, items (not just weapons) are known for their weilders and unique properties.

Where this DM went wrong was:

"spending hours upon hours working on a dungeon, which my players just entered. I fine-tuned a series of items for them to receive until the items were perfect."

This implies the DM specifically tweaked a series of items specifically for each player, without regard as to whether each player would actually like or want the item. Usually this is the sign of a very linear (read railroading) DM, and if you go into a game with expectations of exactly what the PCs will do, how scenes will play out, or what kind of items or advancements the characters will take- you're going to be disappointed.

The other side of this coin that has become a LOT more common in the last 10 years or so is a sense of player entitlement. I've seen this a lot- players with the mindset that they are supposed to be catered to, and if the DM asks them for a little extra effort to integrate them into the world (backstory, roleplaying out conversations, investigative adventures), the players balk and say the DM has no right ramming things down their throat. However, these same players have no problem at all ramming their tastes and preferences down the DM's throat. Basically, some players seem to expect the DM to work for their entertainment, but aren't willing to put any work in themselves to integrate their character into the world, and could care less if the DM is running the kind of game he finds enjoyable. THAT is frustrating to a DM, and the DM has every right to be PO'd if his players take that kind of attitude.

So yes, there should be a compromise. Just as the DM should be thinking of his players desires when designing adventures and make the game fun for them, the players also have the responsibility not to act like spoiled brats and should interact with the DM's world more than if they were just playing Baldur's Gate.