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

[Uder]

The kid who wrote the letter to WotC is a middle-schooler. Sounds like he's really getting into the role of DM and has a lot of promise. I wonder if Monte Cook had written in to TSR and received a response like this if he'd ever have gone on to design games.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.



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."

Exactly D00d.

Imaro's right a DM is entitled to have fun, so that DM needs to find a group that will be interested in those kind of details and play with them.

My experience has been closer to what KM describes, you can throw out the details but you darn well better make sure it's relevant to the players and what they are interested in, blaming the players for not being interested in your item/description/plot is sour grapes pure and simple unless you plant the seeds for them TO care.

Imaro has brought this sort of thing up before in another long thread about the NEED for worldbuilding and while I disagreed with some of his points in that thread he was right about the need for some kind of prep. I stand firmly in the middle of some prep and not too much prep simply because my experience has been when I have over prepped the players could give a crap. But let them find a rusted dagger lodged in the eye of an Orc skeleton in the forgotten undercity then all of a sudden it's like "Where did the dagger come from?" "It it of elven make?" "What does it look like?" then I'm like, huh give me a minute or if I have something handy to slot in concerning the history of the dagger that was meant for another item, I'll use it. But often times, you never really know what random tidbit will interest the PC's.

Does that mean not to prep, no. Does it mean to over prep? IMHO, no. BUt do you have to cater to your players at least 85-90% of the time, yes. I'm sorry but that's just the way that it is. If you have a decent group of people at the table then, at times they will indulge you and the extra work that you put into your game. But as a DM you are trying to entertain and engage your players and hopefully have fun and be engaged yourself. If not, then find another group. Personally I love gaming, but I will just as soon as walk away from a group that I'm not having fun with than continue to play with them just to play. I've done it fairly recently with a M&M group here in NYC. Two of the 4 players were a little too powergamer for me, they were good guys and I like them both, but I didnt want to run a game for them.

It's gonna be different for every table, personally I like giving information in small bit sized morsels to see if the players will bit. Imaro's example, IMHO, was too long. They get a short sentence description MAYBE two and if they bite then over a period of time they'll get more. My thing is give it to them if they want it, not because "I" think they SHOULD be interested in it. Unused ideas are ALWAYS recyclable so it's not like they go to waste. On the other hand if they actually ask for a knowledge check for something, then I'm with Imaro, by all means give them the info. If not it'll keep.

 

[Imaro]

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.

First off this isn't how the situation went down. The DM, originally wasn't given a chance to give the players the info...so whether it was relevant or not...they didn't care. How do you get a chance to see if it's relevant if you aren't willing to listen for a second? They only wanted to know what the items did, you might say cool...but another point I'll bring up is two players were listening, so should their enjoyment be ignored for the sake of the others who don't care?

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."

Did you read the same article I did? Nowhere is what was actually said or how it connected to the campaign as a whole listed...and that's one of the reasons I think the advice was ill-informed and probably relevant only in so much as you assume certain conditions exsisted.

I didn't get the make it relevant thing at all. Please show me where in the article it even comes close to making this a point? I think the Kewl Powerz and the game is for the players were the main gist of this article.

Now were getting into what should be "earned in the game". Well I think that a DM whose even trying to tie things in with the present adventure is going to have problems with a group like that. It's different if they listened and, after a minute of irrelevant dialogue, then decided it wasn't relevant, but again that's not what happened. They've already made it up in their minds that the only thing relevant a magic item can offer, is how much of a plus it gives.

I'm all for making things relevant to characters...but I'm also down for, at times, a more freeform type of game where I may throw hints and seeds in their path and they decide what to do with them. I would hate to try that type of game with the players or the author of that article. They'd be the type eventually starring at me slack-jawed...claiming I didn't give them anything to do. I personally believe everyone is equal when it comes to contributing to the game...and that's just how I like to play. YMMV of course.

 

[howandwhy99]

Maybe if they guy didn't tell the players what the items did, but instead gave only the descriptions? Then the players would have to learn just like their characters. It's not like he was leaving out hints, was he?

It is difficult to say though without knowing the DM's style. If you just start reading off background that's largely irrelevant to the situation at hand, then expect the players to ignore you. When they find themselves in the deep end with information coming fast and furious that's generally when they pay strict attention and start taking notes. Those are the most useful things on the PC sheet anyways.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

First off this isn't how the situation went down. The DM, originally wasn't given a chance to give the players the info...so whether it was relevant or not...they didn't care. How do you get a chance to see if it's relevant if you aren't willing to listen for a second? They only wanted to know what the items did, you might say cool...but another point I'll bring up is two players were listening, so should their enjoyment be ignored for the sake of the others who don't care?

Didint read the article in question (I'm actually printing it out now to read for later) but on this point I've gotta say if there's ONE person in the group who is interested in the information then they're going to get the info. If the other players aren't interested they can go to the bathroom while I pass on the requested info to the interested party.

 

[I'm A Banana]

First off this isn't how the situation went down. The DM, originally wasn't given a chance to give the players the info...

The DM runs the game! He gets to tell the players whatever he wants!

Now, if they aren't interested in the info, he probably shouldn't give it to them just then...wait until it comes up to meet them, so to speak.

so whether it was relevant or not...they didn't care. How do you get a chance to see if it's relevant if you aren't willing to listen for a second?

People listen to what they consider relevant. The players might not consider the history relevant. At least, until they have a reason to do so.

They only wanted to know what the items did, you might say cool...but another point I'll bring up is two players were listening, so should their enjoyment be ignored for the sake of the others who don't care?

He's the DM. He can say "Hey, guys, quiet for a minute, there's two people here who want to know more than just what it can do." And then he can reward that behavior.

If he can't even muster the authority to command basic attention when he's speaking, perhaps he shouldn't be a DM in the first place...DMing does take some willingness to direct attention.

Did you read the same article I did? Nowhere is what was actually said or how it connected to the campaign as a whole listed...and that's one of the reasons I think the advice was ill-informed and probably relevant only in so much as you assume certain conditions exsisted.

He said there was a "long paragraph" of history. The majority of people on earth will be bored by listening to a long paragraph of history about some imaginary staff. Unless you're looking to game exclusively with the few that won't be bored by that, you've gotta make it more to-the-point.

Show, don't tell.

I didn't get the make it relevant thing at all. Please show me where in the article it even comes close to making this a point? I think the Kewl Powerz and the game is for the players were the main gist of this article.

Let me quote, again, from the final, summary paragraph of the article:

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.

Those are functionally the last sentences of the article, the final impression it hopes to give. I quoted them above. READ THEM.

Now were getting into what should be "earned in the game". Well I think that a DM whose even trying to tie things in with the present adventure is going to have problems with a group like that. It's different if they listened and, after a minute of irrelevant dialogue, then decided it wasn't relevant, but again that's not what happened. They've already made it up in their minds that the only thing relevant a magic item can offer, is how much of a plus it gives.

So they're obviously not the kind of people who are inherently interested in the campaign history geekfest. So they'll need other stuff to make them interested in history. If the history provides them with some punch toward their goals, their powers, or their character, then it'll be appreciated. Otherwise, the DM is wasting their time.

I'm all for making things relevant to characters...but I'm also down for, at times, a more freeform type of game where I may throw hints and seeds in their path and they decide what to do with them. I would hate to try that type of game with the players or the author of that article. They'd be the type eventually starring at me slack-jawed...claiming I didn't give them anything to do. I personally believe everyone is equal when it comes to contributing to the game...and that's just how I like to play. YMMV of course.

That's the thing, though -- they decided what to do with the campaign seeds of the history of the item: reject them as irrelevant. They didn't listen. They didn't care. They didn't want it. The DM should not be forcing it on them.

They might not stare at you like dumb animals, either. You're judging them based on far, far too limited information here. Which, oddly enough, is exactly the article's problem, too.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think the article is spot-on. The DM will be hard-pressed to find a group of players appreciating long monolongues about fictional history.

I'd argue the DM in question should try writing short stories or novels. It seems like that might be what he's really interested in.

Saying the DM is entitled to have fun, too, is pricipally fine. But if the DM is hogging the spot-light all the time he's no better than a player doing just that. A DM who's trying to have fun at the cost of the player's fun will soon have no players.

 

[Imaro]

The DM runs the game! He gets to tell the players whatever he wants!

Now, if they aren't interested in the info, he probably shouldn't give it to them just then...wait until it comes up to meet them, so to speak.



People listen to what they consider relevant. The players might not consider the history relevant. At least, until they have a reason to do so.



He's the DM. He can say "Hey, guys, quiet for a minute, there's two people here who want to know more than just what it can do." And then he can reward that behavior.

If he can't even muster the authority to command basic attention when he's speaking, perhaps he shouldn't be a DM in the first place...DMing does take some willingness to direct attention.

You do realize they're in middle school right? That means 6th, 7th and 8th grade. I think your expectations are a little high here.

He said there was a "long paragraph" of history. The majority of people on earth will be bored by listening to a long paragraph of history about some imaginary staff. Unless you're looking to game exclusively with the few that won't be bored by that, you've gotta make it more to-the-point.

Show, don't tell.

But again you miss the point...they started talking the minute he mentioned the items description( in fact he didn't even finish it) before it was gimme...gimme...gimme.

Let me quote, again, from the final, summary paragraph of the article:



Those are functionally the last sentences of the article, the final impression it hopes to give. I quoted them above. READ THEM.

Read them and it's funny because the author gives no solid advice about how to make things relevant to players...it's almost like an afterthought, maybe that's why I missed it.
He spends majority of the article browbeating this kid's style of DM'ing...when in my oppinion his players are participating in their fair share of asshatery, and that isn't addressed at all. It's almost like..look kid suck it up, you got to cater to the players no matter what...whatda you mean you wanna have fun, fun is for players. No wonder there are less DM's than players when you're giving beginners advice like this, instead of telling them how to compromise, techniques to make things relevant, etc. Just wait tillthe other kids who play with him get a look at the article...talk about a DM not having power, the author basically took the players side, when in no way is it as clear cut as that, especially when dealing with kids they're age.

If anything the kid DM'ing seems more into the roleplaying and imagination aspects of the game...while his players seem more into the mechanics and "game" aspects. Much better advice would have focused on how to combine these aspects cohesively. Of course we all know the "game" is what WotC sells.

So they're obviously not the kind of people who are inherently interested in the campaign history geekfest. So they'll need other stuff to make them interested in history. If the history provides them with some punch toward their goals, their powers, or their character, then it'll be appreciated. Otherwise, the DM is wasting their time.

See that's the funny thing about D&D...it probably made this kid think he was going to have adventures and stories like some of his favorite fantasy novels, but there has to be a buy in for that from the players as well. That also should have been addressed as well. The disparity between what is fun for a DM and what is fun for players and finding that medium. You see if people start at this age and figure out DM'ing is all work...no play and no appreciation why would they keep doing it?

That's the thing, though -- they decided what to do with the campaign seeds of the history of the item: reject them as irrelevant. They didn't listen. They didn't care. They didn't want it. The DM should not be forcing it on them.

Above you were all for the DM forcing things on the player...and now he shouldn't be. Your right they didn't...but my point is what kid will find this fun? He is creating and that's his fun in the game...yet it's irrelevant unless it's the specific fun his friends want. This type of thinking almost makes me want to quit DM'ing...if I had to deal with players who weren't at least, minimally, willing to indulge what makes the game fun for me...I probably would have stopped DM'ing when I first got into D&D and just been a player.

They might not stare at you like dumb animals, either. You're judging them based on far, far too limited information here. Which, oddly enough, is exactly the article's problem, too.

Yeah I said that earlier.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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?

two possibilities, depending on how "into" the details of breaking in they are (do the players really want to make a plan out of the raw data or get the data then skip to the exciting part?)

If they aren't into the strategic planning, I would make gather info checks or diplomacy with appropriate role playing (bonuses for a good strategic ideas of who to ask) Then have them make a few knowlege, profession or just int checks as apropriate to the task. Possibly use the alternate complex skill check rules. If they do well, tell them they have found a weakness that they can exploit with appropriate disable device checks and silently taking out a single guard.

If they want to figure out the weak spot themselves, but you are worried about the info dump, I'd write down all the relevant info (and some irrelevant info, of course ) and split it up into several sections with different info going to different players. (There will probably only be one or two really good gather info types, but let part of the info they get be that the security supervisor belongs to the same tribe as Bob the half orc, so Bob can have fun roleplaying how barbarians do the gather info check...) go through the "pre info dump" RP of the intel gathering phase at one session, then give everyone the written info of what their character found out to take home. Next session, they info dump to each other, and you don't have to say a thing except to clarify anything that "I would have tried to ask a little more detail on this." They get the info more organicly, and you can include more red herrings without making it take forever.

Those would be my suggestions at least. The "distributed info dump" method has worked relitively well for me in running one shots, and lets the best courses be organicly concluded by the party rather than me having to say "well, the only problem with that is X" a few of times - the other players say it for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You do realize they're in middle school right? That means 6th, 7th and 8th grade. I think your expectations are a little high here.

Don't insult the kid's skills. ANY DM needs the ability to command a player's attention. How to get someone's attention is something every 2 year old knows how to do. DMs probably need a subtler understanding, but middle schoolers aren't known by and large to be particularly deficient in the area of "having people listen when they talk." They certainly understand raising hands and the like.

But again you miss the point...they started talking the minute he mentioned the items description( in fact he didn't even finish it) before it was gimme...gimme...gimme.

If that's what they want, give it to 'em. The POINT is that history is not what they WANT. They certainly shut up and paid attention when the DM started describing what was important to them (namely, what the item could do).

Read them and it's funny because the author gives no solid advice about how to make things relevant to players...it's almost like an afterthought, maybe that's why I missed it.

The letter didn't ask for advice on how to make an item relevant. The letter complained that what he created was ignored. The article told him WHY it was ignored, and, in a general way (as those constrained by word counts often do) how to fix it. Yeah, okay, it could have been more useful, but we're all pretty much agreed that the article wasn't the greatest response to the letter (even those who generally agree with the article's message).

See that's the funny thing about D&D...it probably made this kid think he was going to have adventures and stories like some of his favorite fantasy novels, but there has to be a buy in for that from the players as well. That also should have been addressed as well. The disparity between what is fun for a DM and what is fun for players and finding that medium. You see if people start at this age and figure out DM'ing is all work...no play and no appreciation why would they keep doing it?

At least for me, seeing my players have fun is infinitely more fun for me, as a DM, then having them digest my little pet world history.

Perhaps that's the advice the article should have given? "If you don't have fun seeing your players blast away your bad guys, maybe you should go write a novel"? I don't think that would have been as useful.

Seriously, if the DM's idea of fun is reading his little backstory aloud while all his friends listen in awe to his creative ability, I think the DM is being, as the article implies, far too self-centered about it. There's a very small minority of people who would derive any kind of amusement from that, and I think that if the article were to say "Loose the players and find some that suit you!" it would be sending the kid off on a very quick trip to Disappointment City, not to mention reinforcing his self-centered feeling of entitlement, rather than telling him something useful (and "Stop thinking of your creation as the coolest thing since the One Ring and start delivering what your players want!" is pretty good advice, even couched in some pretty condescending tones).

Above you were all for the DM forcing things on the player...and now he shouldn't be. Your right they didn't...but my point is what kid will find this fun? He is creating and that's his fun in the game...yet it's irrelevant unless it's the specific fun his friends want. This type of thinking almost makes me want to quit DM'ing...if I had to deal with players who weren't at least, minimally, willing to indulge what makes the game fun for me...I probably would have stopped DM'ing when I first got into D&D and just been a player.

The advice is "make it relevant." If the kid makes his history relevant, he will find it fun, because the players will be interested in his lovingly crafted history (which seems to be what he wants).

I don't really want my players to have to tolerate or indulge me on any sort of a regular basis, especially when we're playing a game and supposedly having some fun. I mean, they tolerate me enough when we're out drinking or when I bring around my newest weird girlfriend.

If the kid wants people to pay attention to his lovingly crafted item history, he might be better off being a writer....though even there, he will get the same advise: "Make it relevant!" He'll find much more audience members willing to just sit and absorb dense blocks of text there, though.

Yeah I said that earlier.

And yet you still judge the players as "gimmie gimmie gimmie." Based on nothing but the DM's letter, which is obviously biased to support his own case that the players should sit down, shut up, and listen to his long paragraph of boxed text.

It's not over-greedy grasping if the DM is going on for longer than three sentences about the ancient carved elven wood and the eldricth runes that spell out words long-forgotten and the dwarf-forged steel on which you can see the particular fingerprints of the Nordwarves of Nordland that glisten in a particular light due to the dwarf's unusual metalic sweat that comes from their diet of partially-ground-up silver and gold, first started at the Feast of Dungumd, where Eric the Brave slayed the Lava Children and blah blah blah...

The player was EXCITED about the item! That's great! USE that excitement! Don't squish it by telling them to sit down and shut up!