Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3663379" data-attributes="member: 18280">You missed my point.The stableboy is relevant to the player, because the player wants to talk to him.  The DM indulges the player in this, although he knows that the stableboy is pretty boring to him.  If the player has fun, and plays it up, then he might entertain the DM even if the DM expected talking to the stableboy to be boring.  This is in answer to your question about the DM having to listen to the players recite their geneaologies.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Simply because something isn't immediately interesting to the DM doesn't mean that he should limit the players.The backdrop of the item is relevant to the DM, and for whatever reason the DM thinks it important for the players to know.  The players indulge the DM in this, although they expect it to be boring.Simply because something isn't immediately interesting to the players doesn't mean that they should limit the DM.I say that the DM should learn the equivilent of having fun, playing it up, and then possibly entertaining the players even though they might have expected it to be boring.  The SMG article should have IMHO given a lot of the advice that has appeared in this thread.  The SMG article should not have IMHO said, essentially "Players have no attention span, and this stuff is boring, so drop it."Moreover, if there is a problem where either DM or player(s) consistently derail the game with things that are of no interest to anyone else, the problem is one of courtesy and/or playstyle.  This might mean finding a new game/player(s) is the best solution.  If the DM (in particular) is the problem, it might mean that he could benefit from spending some more time developing "showman" skills and learning how to integrate his ideas into the game without derailing it.Again, the one thing he should not be told is to just shut up and forget his ideas.  That's the fastest route to DM Burnout there is.  It is also, IMHO, the gist of the SMG article.I honestly don't think that we disagree on the above.  Please correct me if I am wrong.Perforce, the DM has more information to the players, and must also convey more information to the players.  The DM may well know that something is relevant that the players do not.  The players are in no position to know what is relevant unless the DM only mentions things that are relevant when they are relevant.I, for one, encourage players to develop their characters in such a way as they have individual interests, goals, and plans.  In this case, the player might well know that something is relevant that the other players do not (and, in some cases, that the DM does not).  This is a good thing, IMHO, and means that a player might go down a tangent that seems irrelevant.  A good deal of fun is had when suddenly things that seemed irrelevant become very relevant indeed.  If you don't allow for seemingly irrelevant things, then you deny yourself and your players this experience.IMHO, and IME, when skillfully done, this is one of the best parts of RPGs.(Recently, I ran The Dread Mausoleum, which I made available on EN World for others.  The real monsters of the piece are dread ghoul mouse swarms.  Before the dgms are encountered, I mention mice and mouse droppings repeatedly, so that when the dgms are actually encountered, that seemingly trivial bit of description is suddenly understood to be foreshadowing.  The players had fun, and I had fun.  If either of us were unwilling to include/listen to "irrelevant" details, the game would have been far less fun for all of us.)In more direct answer to your question, the DM is telling the players what they see/hear/smell/know in an "omniscient narrator" voice.  The players, when they are giving long speeches, are doing so as player characters.  Which means that, as they are doing so in "real time" others may interrupt them (including other players).I don't expect the players to sit still while NPCs speak, either.  If the BBEG is monologuing, why wouldn't you use that as a chance to act?  If you aren't interested in what the sage has to tell you, you don't need to listen.  You simply accept the consequences of not knowing later.  That seems fairly simple to me.EDIT:  Oh, and I will give certain players specific information that they are then allowed to convey, as detailed earlier.  The players then determine how (and if) that information is conveyed.RC</blockquote>

Verification