DMs -- How Open Are You to Suggestions?

[nopantsyet]

Maybe this is where Incognito and I differ. I'm thrilled to have players design things. I may say no or change things, but I have some current (and former) professional game designers in my group, and they're a really clever bunch. The more they do, the happier I am.

I'm with PKitty on this. Well, except for having professional game designers in my group. But I think it's great when players come up with ideas that spring from wanting to do something creative with their character. I will say no to some things or change others for the sake of balance or fitting the campaign better, but I would say that our games are the better for it. This type of thing must be handled judiciously by the GM, but in general I think that when players put more into their characters, they feel a stronger connection to the character and get more excited and in-character.

 

[Haradim]

I'm quite open to player creations, of just about any variety.

I'm quite confident, however, that I will never actually have to deal with such a situation. I started taking more of an interest in DMing mainly because everyone else outright refused to do so themselves. And I can't see them spending the time, little as it might be, to create a new rule, PrC, or other game element.

 

[pogre]

I am the iron-fisted DM!

Well, not completely, but I am very cautious about bringing any new rules into the game. The only thing I have out-and-out refused thus far is psionics - just not my bag.

I run most campaigns like my classroom - be tough and narrow in the beginning and get a feel for who is a potential min/maxer. Then, loosen your grip for those who want change just to deepen and develop their characters according to their vision.

 

[reapersaurus]

I'm actually surprised that a couple DM's have admitted that they're close-minded about incorporating player ideas.

You guys DO realize that most DM's won't actually admit to doing that, don't you?

There's also a very important thing to realize about threads on the ENBoards:
The DM's here are not a cross-section of how DM's ACTUALLY ARE.

Real life DM's != What DM's on ENBoards say.

So I'll state general observations about what I've seen DM's do IRL and on these boards, in their games, when it really matters, instead of platitudes in a discussion thread.

DM's are people.
Humans.
Humans don't like to spend time and energy on something, and then have anyone else come along and mess with it.
This is simply the Way It Is.
I have tried to become more creatively involved in many DM's worlds, and it is always problematic.
The construct of RPG'ing does not lend itself to multiple creatives in the game.

Most DM's I've encountered are MUCH more concerned with the demographics of some little town, or the personality of an NPC, than they are the entertainment of the players.
You can go ahead and say "No, that's not me. I'm not that kind of DM."
But really think about it.

Unless your situation is like a couple DM's here have mentioned (that you actively promote interaction and discussion and non-retributive feedback from players), than you are probably not getting the real impressions from your players.

In general, while it's probably important to protect your world from the twinky-players by knee-jerk saying "NO" to any request/suggestion, too many DM's get too comfortable in that adverserial, iron-fisted, "It's MY world" approach.
This is why I currently would rather play in an established game-world, one which the DM didn't have to lovingly create with his bare imagination.

Because if it's a custom, home-brew world, he'll be WAY too attached and possessive of it, and not be open to other creative ideas enough, for fear of anything happening to his precious baby.

God forbid he use other people's suggestions to make the world fuller, and more interesting.
There have been many studies that have proven that when a group works on something, than better choices are usually made.
If it's ony one person making all the creative decisions, than usually an inferior product is made.

It's interesting that RPGs fly in the face of that trend.

 

[Quickbeam]

I'm pretty flexible (and approachable) with regards to most of the examples listed in the initial post. IMC currently, we have a player using a homemade PrC he and I worked out for his character; we have a PC using a wondrous magic item they designed; and I have two characters using spells they created themselves.

Non of these things are unbalancing in any way, and that's my primary concern. When players approach me about using absurd weapons, feats, spells, items or abilities, I draw the line. Encouraging player creativity and involvement in the game's evolution is vital to an enjoyable campaign IMO. But I don't allow any old hair-brained, munchkin concept to find its way to the gaming table.

 

[LGodamus]

PKitty and Nopantsyet....hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned......I am only one man with a limited amount of creativity and depth of experience to pull from.....then on the other side of my screen are 4 other folks with their own creativity and experiences who may have ideas that never occured to me, and I am not so arrogant that I would believe that only my ideas are good ones ,or that only my ideas have a place in my homebrew......the world is a big place there are room for all sorts of ideas. As far as game balance goes I can balance damn near anything with a little bit of time and playtesting, and my time is something I am not stingy with since basically I gave up my right to be time selfish when I chose to DM.

 

[incognito]

Nemm and Reap summed up my feelings to a "T"

but Reap lemme quote ya:

If it's ony one person making all the creative decisions, than usually an inferior product is made.

I current DM in a greyhawk world - and I'm STILL Iron fisted.

I feel like there is a forum for open player participation - it called "storytelling" and DnD is not a story telling RPG (they are generally dice-less)

Can I make a distinction: I ask for player feedback: Did you like this? Do you feel that was too much? Not always, but often.

That way, if i ever fall to far of track of the type of game my players enjoy, I can reel it in. However, it's STILL in the context of my game, and STILL my world to run.

I applaud P-Cat, and the pantsless one for thier players and thier relative talents at submitting ideas, but I feel that they could be creating thier own worlds, rather than fleshing the creators (the DMs) world.

If you need help with something - heck, you have the ENTIRE ENBoard. If that's not enough - well...I can't really imagine it not being enough. And in this reapasaurus, it is more than one chef, and certainly not an inferiour product.

 

[Black Omega]

Re: Re: Elusive Player Input

I know exactly how you feel. I begged my players for feedback until I just snapped one day and said, "Fine, if you aren't willing to give me feedback, I'll assume everything I'm doing is BRILLIANT!"

The only thing I got in response to that was a casual, "Eh, if I hate something you do, I'll tell yah." Nobody said anything after that so I assume I run the best game in the world

This seems pretty common, though. When I ask for feedback I'm typically told everything is going fine in the game, though if I comment on something I thought was wrong with the game, I'll also get agreement from some players

Generally, either my players are happy with the game or they are biting back comments in order to save my fragile ego. Either way, they want the game to go on, so it's a good sign.

 

[Reprisal]

Generally, either my players are happy with the game or they are biting back comments in order to save my fragile ego. Either way, they want the game to go on, so it's a good sign.

Also, a lot of players seem to be unable to articulate what it is that they liked and disliked about any given campaign. Personally, I find that a significant stint as a DM really helps in that department.

Still, for those players who will probably never take a seat in the DM's chair, it seems difficult to really get what they're thinking out into the open. Sometimes, like some have said, they are simply biting their tongues to save your feelings; other times, they might not be able to clearly state what it is that they like and don't like.

Some people, like myself, cannot be critical the first time around. When I watch a movie, or a television program, or read a book/manuscript, I have to read it once for content and then again for evaluation. Perhaps there are more people like me out there than I previously thought?

That being said, what are some of the ways that you have successfully gotten feedback from players? How many of you, as players, consciously attempt to keep tabs on things you like and do not? Do you write these things down? Is there a roundtable discussion at the end? Or do you simply approach the DM for a one-to-one?

- Rep.

 

[reapersaurus]

To answer you, there is really no good way to get across what you don't like about a campaign to a DM.
Just like there's no good way to have to 'kick out' a player from the game, as I've seen many threads discuss over the years...

The DM will take things personally, and most likely hold it against the player antagonistically, regardless of whether the feedback is given anonymously, one-on-one, in passing, by a couple people, over email, whatever.

It doesn't matter the way critical feedback is delivered - it is never welcome.

Only positive comments are welcome - just look at the Story Hour Forum (and by extension, some of the House Rules threads).