Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3658264" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's why I don't think the article is very good, either, because it seems to come on very strongly with "badwrongfun!" I think the ultimate point is a good one, and that the DM does need to stop taking it so personally (your "art"?!), but the writer makes some kind of sad assumptions about the group, what they're trying to achieve, and how to make it better, and gets lost in kind of bashing the kid's style too much.The DM has a place for fun in the game that, IMO, is the equal of any player. It's not above all the players, but it's on par with any one of them (which means the DM can be out-voted). I'm lucky, I think, that a huge part of my fun is helping my friends to have fun, so huge that I'll mercilessly execute any plan that seems like a fun idea for a night. But I'm definitely an extreme example. The kid likes his history. I think the article would have been much better suited to focus on the how to make it relevant (like by spreading it out over multiple sessions or having it tie into the character's current powers or on methods of rewarding curiosity) than on telling the kid to swallow his pride (though the kid probably need to be told that, too, just as his friends might be needed to be told to calm down. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). The tactic is pulling out the "Why don't you go play another game if you're so not into this one?" card, which isn't a valid argument here. Because D&D certainly can encompass everything the players seem to want from it. It might have some troubles encompassing what the DM wants out of it, at least at the same time, though. If you missed two paragraphs of a five paragraph (IIRC) article, then I guess I can't really expect you to pick out the various instances of mild to moderate DM superiority complexes that pop up in this thread. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> But that's okay. Because that's not the point. The point is that the article tells the DM (in a pretty shoddy fashion, IMO) how to get what he wants: make it relevant. It doesn't need to mention compromise. It's not about whose fun is more important. It's not a Fun Contest where the biggest smile wins. It's about how to keep the players happy, and make the DM happy to boot. The wonderful bit about that advice ("make it relevant") is that if Noah takes it, everyone wins. He gets his history (though probably not big blocks of it), and they get interested in his history (by luring them with the carrot of kewl powerz or phat lewt or whatever is actually relevant to his players).It does appear that you may be too blinded by ire at the way the message was worded to distil the value in it from the claptrap. The article isn't about player entitlement or weakening a GM's influence or coddling players. It's about cleverly using your position of authority to give people what they want so they'll give you what you want. And yea, some of that is lost in the intial rush to tell the kid that he's not a special, unique snowflake.That's because this approach is defeatist, narrow minded, and, ultimately, no fun for anyone. It's a valid tactic when people are fundamentally incompatible, but, honestly, if the kid's so touchy that people not respecting his "art" makes him fundamentally incompatible with others, the kid's got bigger problems then what's at the table. The DM, for better or worse, is responsible for their own enjoyment as well as the players'. That's the burden of authority and power in the game. If the player's aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. If the DM isn't having fun it's the DM's fault. The buck stops there, after all. So, regardless of who isn't having fun, it's up to the DM to use his power, to control the game environment, and try and make it fun. Or to give up, I suppose. But, honestly, "Go find another group!" is tossed out way, way, way too much as a tactic, and it's not very constructive. I've had my share of disagreements with players and other DMs, and I've never had to just give up and write them off. Instead, I learned about the situation, dealt with it, educated myself, and moved on. Again, Noah didn't have any problems listing the item's abilities. He had trouble getting them to care about the appearance and history of the item (they spoke out during his exposition of the appearance, and he complained that they didn't care about the history). Conclusion? They didn't care about the appearance or history of the item. Want them to care? Make it important. Maybe what he needs to do is learn how to deal with problems in ways other than taking his ball and going home as a first tactic whenever he has a disagreement. Heck, maybe *everyone* needs to learn how to do that.You should really stop using "fun" like a bludgeon. If the DM's fun comes from having a captive audience for his fantasy "art," he's in the wrong racket playing D&D. The article did entirely ignore those who Noah said were interested, and that's a shame.Still, by making it relevant, he rewards them, too. Because if the history is important to getting the powers of the item, then those who have a particular interest in his setting porn will be more inclined to get powers. By integrating his history into the aspects of his game that the players are already all enjoying, he ensures that the important stuff isn't lost. Are you arguing that these kids wouldn't let the DM get in a word edgewise? Because, again, he mentioned no difficulty when he listed the powers of the item, or at any other time in the adventure.So perhaps the powers were the only thing relevant to the players and the game at the time. I get the impression the DM wants to showcase his artistic merit in a D&D game, which is something I've seen before, and which always goes horribly, horribly....horrible.</blockquote>

Verification