Do you GM for yourself or others?

[Kannon]

More accepted, maybe. But it's not everyone's experience, that's for sure. I've only ever had one whiny player, and everyone around the table told him to STFU and go away before I could say anything about it.

Then he got all uppity, and said it wasn't their call, it was (mine) as the DM. They responded by surprise attacking his PC, tying him up, and leaving the whiny bastard there to die, and I politely told him he could roll up a new character with more points in testicular fortitude, or he could go away. When he pouted about that, I was a bit more blunt. I believe my exact wording was closer to "Stereotypically, I should tell you to quit playing D&D like a whiny little punk, but in lieu of our current table composition, how about you just play like a girl?" (He was the only guy at the table besides me, if the joke falls flat.)

 

[haakon1]

Kannon, I don't recall having a problem with whiner gamers in/from either country. (I'm American but lived in the UK for three years.)

But I play mostly with people I already know in other ways, and perhaps that cuts down on whininess/argumentativeness as opposed to gaming with strangers.

What I meant was that, in general, British culture is more reserved and less directly confrontational. If a Brit doesn't like something you're doing, they might make snide remarks or little "jokes" about it, but in most cases they won't be directly whiny or confrontational. Whereas Americans are sometimes more directly confrontational, and some Americans can be real whiners and seemingly don't get told off for it as fast.

In either culture, though, I suppose the most common form of whining is to complain to someone else behind your back!

 

[S'mon]

Kannon, I don't recall having a problem with whiner gamers in/from either country. (I'm American but lived in the UK for three years.)

But I play mostly with people I already know in other ways, and perhaps that cuts down on whininess/argumentativeness as opposed to gaming with strangers.

What I meant was that, in general, British culture is more reserved and less directly confrontational. If a Brit doesn't like something you're doing, they might make snide remarks or little "jokes" about it, but in most cases they won't be directly whiny or confrontational. Whereas Americans are sometimes more directly confrontational, and some Americans can be real whiners and seemingly don't get told off for it as fast.

In either culture, though, I suppose the most common form of whining is to complain to someone else behind your back!

Kzach's in Australia - Australians are often more forthright than either Americans or English IME (New Zealanders are more reserved though). But living in London I've played with about as many Americans & Australians as English over the last 11 years; I've encountered very few whiny/complaining players (1 or 2 English in 2008-9, 1 American in 2011, 0 Australian ever that I can recall), and they only ever lasted one session either of my game or another GM's. The American player was at another DM's game in February this year, and he was almost the only one I've ever encountered from many dozens who somewhat matched Kzach's description. This is with gaming with mostly relative strangers.

Edit: Some young people who've grown up on video games do seem to have a sense of entitlement, this fitted one young English player I had to eventually expel from my game in 2009. But as a general rule it's much more true to say that players not only do not complain, they usually don't offer even constructive advice.

 

[wedgeski]

I DM systems and campaigns that will interest me... but everything after that (and I mean *everything*) is done for the benefit of the players. Some DM's may cringe at such an approach, but the simple fact is this: at the table, 100% of my enjoyment of the game I'm running is derived from the enjoyment my players are having. So, it all works out pretty well for the both of us.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I certainly DM because people want me to DM. I like being player more, but I always want to control story too, but at the same time I don't like to be leader in party. Anyhow, I think DM should be main person controlling plot and rules. I don't always even play "main" character type persons. I am very group friendly but at the same time I make up some stuff with my character's "voice", but I don't demand it to be true, just some point of view thing. I am not always easiest person to dm game to, but most of time I am happy little rat.

I mostly don't like dm because it's so much work, but I am happy to do it while I am doing it. Sometimes it's very fun, then people get really exited. At other times it feels like they want me to pull them to someplace interesting. I hate micromanaging both as dm and player and i have two players in my alt group that are really into it.
They don't even like to adventure, they are much more happy to shop, breed horses, build castles and run villages. For me this is utterly boring. Thus whenever I play game that one gm says he thinks I really get things moving so fast.


So I don't like to please players at everything. Also I don't puke all my personal interests on them either. I think there is some golden middle there, where we all are happy enough to play together.

 

[DragonLancer]

I primarily GM for my own enjoyment but I would want the players to also enjoy the game. I've never been a fan of the "players first, GM second" mentality because it seems counterproductive.

 

[Aeolius]

I DM, so that my hags have someone to play with

Like many DMs, I begin with a campaign concept that I would enjoy running. Then I recruit players who wish to share my vision. I suppose this approach works best for online gaming, as players would peruse a recruiting board and see that I am running a game using a certain system, at a certain time, and using certain elements to make the game unique. Then they could decide to either try the campaign or lurk for several sessions to audit the experience.

Four years ago, if I had tried that approach for an undersea hag-laden World of Greyhawk face-to-face game using 3.5e, I would no doubt still be looking for my first player.

So yes, I DM for myself, but with the knowledge that without players, I am simply an author. I view online gaming as a coauthored work of interactive fiction. I set the scene and start each chapter, but my players bring my setting to life by interacting with my world in ways I could never imagine.

A DM without players is a bit like the kid in class wearing polka dots, checks, stripes, and a "I Dressed Myself Today" button.

 

[Kannik]

What I mean is, do you think of GMing (the planning, writing, developing, session running, etc) as something you primarily do for your own enjoyment and that hopefully others will enjoy too (but if not, oh well, they can go find someone else)? Or do you think of being a GM as something of a service, where you fashion things mostly to the tastes and desires of the players as best as possible, even if this means running games that are not your favorite?

Yes... and yes. I am running a game/campaign completely where it is an adventure, a style, a system and a plot arc that I enjoy, and hope that others will enjoy it as well. And, I've been listening to my players, for how they want the campaign to run (one player wants less open endedness and prefers something where he's sure he's on the right track, forex) and have altered how I'm running it or even how I've plotted out the adventure to go. So I do feel as though I'm providing a service towards the players tastes within the greater enjoyment of a campaign I want to run (and have had players leave the campaign because it wasn't their cup of tea).

Hmm. I'm not sure if I answered the question or if I just confused myself.

Perhaps a more succinct way of putting it is: I have great flexibility to be a service for the players within the confines of a game and adventure I want to run.

gamingly,

Kannik

 

[Corathon]

I think that the dichotomy is a false one. If I don't enjoy running the game, it will inevitably show, and lead to an unfun game for the players. Its a lot of work to be the DM, and that has to be a labor of love. OTOH, if my players are unhappy, this leads to me being unhappy also.

I think that it has to be fun for everybody (most of the time; its not about FUN!FUN!FUN! Every minute!) or it will end up being fun for no one.

 

[CuRoi]

Warms my little DM heart . . . I thought the same thing, but did it because someone wanted to make a change, and I'm willing to bend a LITTLE to make them happy.

Oh, to be sure, I'm not completely draconian about it. I've let in rules, feats, classes, prestige classes, spells, etc. from other sources after review (I've also said -no- more than a few times). I just let people understand up front it's the exception not the rule so no one new to the group is disappointed. Anytime you say "let's play DnD" there is an understandably large number of players/DMs that take this to mean "lets haul out our library of official, non-official, and/or fly by night publishers d20 books and play D(ewey) and D(ecimal) the RPG."

I've always played that way really, I'm the TSR/WotC nightmare customer. I need a PHB, the MM and I'm good for a multi-year campaign (the DMG for whatever edition is nice, but optional - I've already got the Gygax DMG always on hand, heh. It's quirky and flat out bizarre but somehow packs more inspiration in it's pages than most of the newer texts.)