DMs are too easy on their players

[Mallus]

If one of my friends had made a wish like that, I would've tormented him with advances from half-orc transvestites for next 2-4 sessions.

I'd do that regardless, but my homebrew is a... special sort of place.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This topic of discussion is a bit distant for me though, I only play with people who have been my friends for the past 15 years, so we don't usually have serious chemistry problems that would require anyone to come with DEMANDs to the table. We do argue about the rules and all that, but it's all in good fun.

Same here. I tried once to game with others just to game and it wasn't for me.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Did you note where I noted that I go the extra mile for players who go the extra mile for the game?

I noted your entire statement. I disagreed with the statement I quoted which was expanded on but not negated in the later statement. It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.

 

[Hjorimir]

This is exactly the sort of DM I have no interest in playing with (or being for that matter.) The DM is a member of the gaming group, with a different role in the current game, not the one immovable object which everyone else in the group must take or leave as a whole. Maybe I've been spoiled by mostly playing in groups with more than one potential DM, but I expect (and give) options when starting a campaign. The DM preferences establish the range of options and the player preferences establish which ones are used. I would never play in a group where it was assumed that the DM had all the power and my only choice was "take it or leave it". I would leave it even if the initial setup was one I would take.

(If I'm joining a game in progress, then I take or leave what the group has agreed on for that game to that point.)

Emphasis mine.

That's the DM take it or leave it...at least for me it is and that's how I run my games. I esablish what is allowed within the campaign and from that the players make their characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.

You must not put up with very many social scenarios at all, then.

In any social scenario, each person in that scenario is trying to get at least a part of what they want. They have to gain some value for the energy put forth. You can go into a social scenario hoping to change the other people involved into to meet your needs, or you can hope to have reasonably compatable needs. If you have reasonably compatable needs, you can determine which needs of each party are most important and attempt to make everyone happy to some extent.

But every compromise situation has, inherent within it, for each participant, a "this is how far I'll go, take it or leave it".

Because reward must exceed investment in order to make the investment worthwhile, the person or persons who invest the most must meet more of their needs, or they have no motive to invest. In a rpg, this means that if the GM invests the most time, effort, and often money, he or she is going to want a return on that investment. If the return on investment isn't as great as the investment itself, the GM will experience "GM Burnout" and simply not want to do it any longer.

It is also true that the players must experience a greater reward than their investment. In order to have invested players, investment has to result in greater reward. When I read Remathilis' post, this is what I saw him as saying.

As a DM, I do some things to minimize my investment so that I can minimize my need for reward (and hence, be further open to compromise). One of the things I do is use a consistent world for a backdrop. If I was to create a new world, or use someone else's world, I would have to invest more, and thus would require some incentive for so doing. This is a point where, in general, the buck stops. Likewise, I have no desire to argue rules in the middle of the game. You can make a brief argument, but when I've made the final call, that's what happens. We can discuss it more outside of the game, to a limited extent, but that still isn't an invitation to harrangue me until I change my mind to your point of view. Anyone who does that may use the door, because the reward ceases to be worth the investment of DMing for that sort of individual.

Player investment is often a reward for the DM. DM investment is often a reward for the players. If you get a good group, you can often hit a point where everyone gets a hell of a lot more out of it than they put it. That's why I enjoy this hobby. Sometimes its golden.

"Take it or leave it", IMHO, just means that there are limitations to how far compromise can go. That is inherent in every type of social interaction. Sometimes, taking it is wonderful because you are being offered something you want. Sometimes, taking it is okay because you are compromising on some things you want. Sometimes, taking it involves too much compromise and it is better to leave it.

IMHO, of course. I'd say "YMMV" but I don't really believe that's true. More like "Your understanding of your mileage might vary."


RC

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You must not put up with very many social scenarios at all, then.

BBBZZZZZTTTT! Sorry, your understanding of what I'm saying is what varies.

 

[Ourph]

It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If you don't "put up with" take it or leave it social scenarios, you are "leaving it". Catch 22.

 

[Phlebas]

Be interesting to know which posters mainly play, mainly DM or do a bit of both when they discuss what rights the players have to demand off the DM or vice versa..........

Personally i thought most of Remathilis list of demands/requests was pretty reasonable, I'd just point out the biggest factor for me in DM'ing is how much investment the players are going to make back for all the investment i've made in setting the game up. #7 covers most of that.

as for take it or leave it ref style - i prefer to say that as ref I have the right of veto, I'll be as flexible as i can unless it takes the game away from where I'm comfortable. As a player i accept that the ref will put limits due to his game style on my play.

 

[Crust]

The Hubby was commenting just the other day about some of the more lengthy lists in the "Savage Tide Obituaries" thread and wondering how they managed to maintain any connection to the major NPCs. We joked about the next encounter with Vanthus.... "Ha, you foul villain, now we will have our revenge for your trapping of... um these guys none of us ever met... but a guy who is also dead now told us the story second hand... or was it third hand... and um, we heard you were the brother of our boss... well the boss of the guys who shipwreaked on our island and we've slowly replaced... we never met her...."

 

[Jim Hague]

I guess I'll stand in the vocal minority.
[
AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND...*snip*

OK, few things here:

1) You don't get to "demand" anything, hoss, not if you were playing at my table. I game with friends, and someone coming up and making demands sure as shootin' doesn't seem interested in friendship, just control. You don't have the right to demand - you get a reasonable expectation of being entertained.

2) The GM is a player too, just in a different capacity. So yes, it's as much about their world, the storyline and the antagonists the GM puts in your path as it is about your elf noble searching for their lost love.

3) The GM does have the right to expect people to show up for the game on time, in the agreed place, for the duration. Sorry, but as the person presumably putting the extra work in there to come up with fun and entertainment, they do.

Reasonable expectations are one thing...being a jerk and making demands? Yeah, there's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way you.