Forked Thread: DMs - No one cares how long you worked (was: Rant -- GM Control...)

[maddman75]

Since he's most aware of what the adventures will be, how the world works in the campaign, and probably most familiar with the history of the world and such, it's part of the DM's job to keep things on track and keep the "feel" of the campaign consistant.

Just like a director of a movie will seek to keep the look and feel of the film on track and consistant.

But he's not an all powerful dictator. (Or at least shouldn't be.)

Like any good leader he should be open to the thoughts and feelings of his players. Just like the good director listens to suggestions and thoughts of his actors, and editor and cinematographer.

If there's a reason that something won't "fit" right with the campaign world then the DM should explain his feelings on the issue, and WHY he doesn't want something in the game.

It should never simply be "cuz I don't want it there."

Explaining why goes a long way.

I largely agree with this, but with the addendum that if it doesn't fit the DM not only needs to explain it to the player, but find out why the player thought it would fit. If people are on different pages about how the game should feel, problems will ensue.

 

[Scribble]

I largely agree with this, but with the addendum that if it doesn't fit the DM not only needs to explain it to the player, but find out why the player thought it would fit. If people are on different pages about how the game should feel, problems will ensue.

I agree completely.

 

[Obryn]

for me the pleasure of DM'ing comes from entertaining my friends. Maintaining the integrity of --and fidelity to-- some made-up world is secondary at best

Yep, I agree 100%, as I said in the other thread.

I DM games because I love doing it. I don't see the added work as a chore or a burden, I see it as a privilege and benefit. My players get to play once a week. I get to play every time I crack open a module, read a wiki page, and work out stats & places.

Because I love doing it, I don't expect my players to bend over backwards and kow-tow to my authority. Nor is my definition of "fun" so narrow that I can't take their input into account. In fact, I depend on their input. If my players aren't enjoying the game I am running, then I am failing in my job as a DM and wasting everyone's time.

-O

 

[Storminator]

I used to do a lot of work for my games, and I maintained a lot of control. I didn't give players monster numbers until they figured them out themselves, I didn't take shortcuts with mapping, etc. In my D&D games, I've lightened up a lot, but I notice that it takes an effort for me to do so. How I play D&D was scripted long ago, and I need to consciously shake that kill-the-PCs-and-take-their-stuff attitude.

But in my M&M game, it's totally different. The whole goal, the purpose of every session, is to let the PCs whoop tail, and to let the players riff off each other. As such, I will throw out any and everything I've come up with if it's going to work at the table. Last session the players were so awesome, I joked I over prepared. I should have just said "Nazis!" and stood back for the whole session - they were that good.

So while I get the mindset, I've actively weaning myself away from it.

PS

 

[underthumb]

Forked from: Rant -- GM Control, Taking it Too Far? The players should have an equal say in the nature, tone, and events in the game. I don't, and the people I play with don't show up for a game to have a DM show off his delicately crafted campaign setting. No one cares. They want to adventure, play out their character's issues and goals, and have some fun. If your setting enhances that, then good! If not, then abandon it.

Running a consistent game world and "simulating" all non-player components of that world is a huge amount of effort. There is no sense in dedicating time to that effort if players have an "equal say" in the nature, tone, and events of the game. Or, put another way, the GM may as well perform no preparation, because preparation biases the probability of some events over others, fleshes out some NPCs more than others, etc., all of which gives the GM greater control.

I think everyone agrees that GMs need to carefully listen to their players and keep them in mind when constructing and running their campaigns. However, players should recognize that the GM is incurring the largest opportunity cost via participation. If my players acted as if they didn't recognize this or didn't care, I wouldn't play with them. They would be showing clear signs that they did not value my time.

 

[Mallus]

I should have just said "Nazis!" and stood back for the whole session -

That's beautiful, man.

 

[Mallus]

Running a consistent game world and "simulating" all non-player components of that world is a huge amount of effort.

It's not that hard if you offload some of the work to the players. Consider it 'distributed DM'ing'.

Or, put another way, the GM may as well perform no preparation, because preparation biases the probability of some events over others, fleshes out some NPCs more than others, etc., all of which gives the GM greater control.

It's possible to be flexible without invalidating prep-work. The goal isn't to absolutely equalize narrative authority, it's roll with player input even when it's not wholly to the DM's liking.

 

[Obryn]

Running a consistent game world and "simulating" all non-player components of that world is a huge amount of effort. There is no sense in dedicating time to that effort if players have an "equal say" in the nature, tone, and events of the game.

I agree that it's an effort. Do you not find the effort enjoyable?

Or, put another way, the GM may as well perform no preparation, because preparation biases the probability of some events over others, fleshes out some NPCs more than others, etc., all of which gives the GM greater control.

I don't get what you're saying here, but I think you're taking what me, maddman, Mallus, etc. are saying to an illogical extreme. I could be wrong, though - could you clarify?

I think everyone agrees that GMs need to carefully listen to their players and keep them in mind when constructing and running their campaigns. However, players should recognize that the GM is incurring the largest opportunity cost via participation. If my players acted as if they didn't recognize this or didn't care, I wouldn't play with them. They would be showing clear signs that they did not value my time.

You see, I'm exactly the opposite. If a DM kept reminding me how tough DMing is, how much effort it was, and how much it's costing them to do it... Well, I would feel a little put off, as a player.

-O

 

[maddman75]

Last session the players were so awesome, I joked I over prepared. I should have just said "Nazis!" and stood back for the whole session - they were that good.

This.

This is the Tao of GM.

 

[Jack7]

But he's not an all powerful dictator. (Or at least shouldn't be.)

Like any good leader he should be open to the thoughts and feelings of his players. Just like the good director listens to suggestions and thoughts of his actors, and editor and cinematographer.

If there's a reason that something won't "fit" right with the campaign world then the DM should explain his feelings on the issue, and WHY he doesn't want something in the game.

It should never simply be "cuz I don't want it there."

Explaining why goes a long way.

I largely agree with this, but with the addendum that if it doesn't fit the DM not only needs to explain it to the player, but find out why the player thought it would fit. If people are on different pages about how the game should feel, problems will ensue.

Well played. On both parts. My only caveat is that sometimes players don't need to know the reasons behind a particular decision because of something they will either encounter, or figure out later on, about the adventure, campaign, or world.

In cases like that I just say, "trust me folks, you'll understand later." And usually they do.