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

[ThirdWizard]

"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 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.

 

[Imaro]

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.

This is the problem I have with the...instant gratification, must apply to me now, and the DM better make it that way...theory. It's being lazy on the players part. Why can't you make it relevant, if I as a GM lay the groundwork.
1. What if later in the campaign Frolmr reappears(thus I'm using foreshadowing).
2. Why can't you decide to reunite the tribes under the sword? Or give it back to them and make allies.
3. Find out if you have a "pure heart" by using it.

 

[Hjorimir]

Py players have learned - over the years - that there are benefits to unravelling the mysteries of history.

They will chart out the information of my campaign, analyze it, and try to figure out to do with it. They will specifically hold meetins where I'm not allowed to attend to discuss their analyzations and plot. I may get a phonecall or two during such meetings where they ask me to elucidate a point, but that's it.

I almost never have to lead my players to adventure. They hunt for it though the context of my setting.

Damn, I love my players.

 

[delericho]

Actually, on thinking on this some more, I have come up with a conundrum: sometimes, long exposition is both appropriate, and perhaps even necessary.

Consider, for example, the first Mission: Impossible movie, and specifically the section where they break into Langley. Now, in order to run this, the players need a lot of information in order to build their plan. They need to have the floorplans of the place, they need to know about security measures, they need to know the people involved, and so on. And in fact, since they won't know what's relevant and what isn't until their build their plan, they would actually need a lot more than was shown in the film.

But, how does one go about getting that information to them? I mean, I'm a fairly engaging speaker (a useful skill that, and one for which I can thank D&D), but I know that a lot of that is in not going into too much detail, and knowing when to stop speaking. That being the case, I would be very reluctant to just talk through the required data at length.

So, any ideas? Is that scenario just not suitable for gaming? Do the players have to just endure? Can they relied on to be interested by virtue of it being their choice to break in?

 

[delericho]

Py players have learned - over the years - that there are benefits to unravelling the mysteries of history.

They will chart out the information of my campaign, analyze it, and try to figure out to do with it. They will specifically hold meetins where I'm not allowed to attend to discuss their analyzations and plot.

That's really cool. My players don't go quite as far, but there have definately been occasions where I've been able to throw in things here and there and have them recognised and acted upon.

In fact, last Tuesday I found myself running a lightweight one-shot featuring the "Cult of Meepo", the last survivors of a kobold clan who had been wiped out by adventurers, and spent the whole evening playing on the accumulated lore of my past campaigns. That was a lot of fun.

 

[Darklone]

I think if it's a question of DM fun vs player fun, then the kid has already fallen out of the window.

We're all players, aren't we?

 

[Phlebas]

Tried to get all my players reading my website to pick up on the world background - failed dismally

then i issued an in game newsletter, which was ignored. Until i stopped doing it and then i got nagged incessantly by some of the players

It helped when i started to throw a few game clues into the newsletter - the defining moment for me was a few weeks ago when they were trying to decipher a clue and the wizard demanded all the old newsletters so he could try to find out whose initials were on the letter they'd found

The morale: if it isn't relevant, the pc's will focus on what is (human nature). Make the background (or at least some of it) relevant, then it'll get their attention

Now they're nagging me to update the website - be careful what you wish for......

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is the problem I have with the...instant gratification, must apply to me now, and the DM better make it that way...theory. It's being lazy on the players part. Why can't you make it relevant, if I as a GM lay the groundwork.
1. What if later in the campaign Frolmr reappears(thus I'm using foreshadowing).
2. Why can't you decide to reunite the tribes under the sword? Or give it back to them and make allies.
3. Find out if you have a "pure heart" by using it.

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!

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

 

[Mallus]

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.