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

[Vegepygmy]

If a DM does little to no work, yet it's fun, I say "good campaign." Conversely, if the game is no fun at all, the amount of work put into it doesn't make it a good campaign...

But I don't start with the idea that hard work is the important part.

I do, and here's why: it's just like my Grandma giving me a lame birthday present. She may not understand what I want, and she may get me something I hate--but damn it, she tried. She loves me, and it's the thought that counts in my book.

DMs are basically giving me their time. So even if they fail in their efforts to create a fun game, I appreciate the effort.

Also, I believe very strongly in the correlation between "work put in" and "fun game that results." IME, the DMs who spend a lot of time in preparation make the game more fun for me. So I want to encourage them to spend that time, even in the unusual event that it doesn't pay off and the game kind of sucks. Because most of the time it will pay off.

 

[Mournblade94]

I think some of the issues discussed here come up more often these days due to large number of what I call " extreme casual" players in the hobby. These are the players that join campaigns primarily to socialize and hang out rather than to actually play. While chatting and hanging out are certainly an important part of gaming for me, the game itself is more fun when everyone is engaged and paying attention.

I would have to agree with you there. This is the only type of player I have told is not welcome. The people I have been gaming with for years REALLY enjoy it. We have had the extreme casual gamer (we are part of a much larger gaming group, a larp with lots of tabletoppers and SCA members) join our group, and while we are welcoming, we get annoyed when another player interferes with our dynamic.

I DM for a game store, and the extreme casual gamer, (often noobs) are always there in droves which makes DMing a bit tedious. Still they keep coming back for more.

 

[Hussar]

I do, and here's why: it's just like my Grandma giving me a lame birthday present. She may not understand what I want, and she may get me something I hate--but damn it, she tried. She loves me, and it's the thought that counts in my book.

DMs are basically giving me their time. So even if they fail in their efforts to create a fun game, I appreciate the effort.

Also, I believe very strongly in the correlation between "work put in" and "fun game that results." IME, the DMs who spend a lot of time in preparation make the game more fun for me. So I want to encourage them to spend that time, even in the unusual event that it doesn't pay off and the game kind of sucks. Because most of the time it will pay off.

I guess it comes down to how much that appreciation is "worth". Sure, you appreciate that your Grandma tried, but, that still doesn't change the fact that you hate that sweater and never wear it.

In the same way, I stand in absolute awe of the work that some DM's put into their worlds. I am constantly amazed by the sheer volume of effor that some DM's put in. But, that amazement and awe will not stop me from jumping ship if I'm not enjoying the game.

Conversely, as the DM, the amount of work I choose to do in a campaign is not something I need to have my ego stroked about. If I do 100 hours for an adventure, or I do 2 hours, so long as the players are enjoying the story that I place in front of them, so long as they are engaging the plot and themes that I want to explore, I win. The work preparing is a means to an end. How much I do is rather irrelevant. If my ideas and presentation result in a great game, THAT'S my reward.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Conversely, as the DM, the amount of work I choose to do in a campaign is not something I need to have my ego stroked about.

See, you're talking about someone expressing their concern and respect for the work put into DMing, and I was talking about simply having concern and respect for the work put into DMing.

Being told my game is fun to play is nice, but I certainly don't expect it. (If I can't tell they're having fun while we're playing, something's wrong.) I also don't need my players to tell me that they appreciate the amount of work I put into my game ... truthfully, I assume that they appreciate it. I actually kind of assumed that all -- or almost all -- players appreciated the work that their DMs do.

That this isn't true -- as evidenced by this thread -- is disheartening. Not on a personal level -- since my players would be as flabbergasted by this attitude as I am -- but on a general level.

 

[S'mon]

As far as "extreme casual" players go, I've never been a fan of the idea that players must know all the rules pertaining to their PC. I see rules as being a GM's aid to help him in adjudicating interaction between the PCs and the world. Also, in recent years games have become much more complicated; mastering 3e or 4e D&D is a real effort. I prefer games with less buy-in required.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As far as "extreme casual" players go, I've never been a fan of the idea that players must know all the rules pertaining to their PC. I see rules as being a GM's aid to help him in adjudicating interaction between the PCs and the world. Also, in recent years games have become much more complicated; mastering 3e or 4e D&D is a real effort. I prefer games with less buy-in required.

The "extreme casual" type of player has nothing to do with rules mastery. This type of player doesn't really pay attention to whats happening in the game and just uses the gaming group to socialize and chat about other stuff. A whole group of this type of player is great, everyone has a good time, the game barely happens or moves along, yet the session is still a success because everyone had fun. Throw a couple of these types of players into a group thats really engaged in campaign events (regardless of rules knowledge) and you get a clash of basic approaches to the game.

I am happy to run games for new players who don't know any rules and want to play. If they don't spend any out of game time to learn rules thats fine too. If the players show up, and want to actually play the game then I can handle rules stuff.

 

[S'mon]

I am happy to run games for new players who don't know any rules and want to play. If they don't spend any out of game time to learn rules thats fine too. If the players show up, and want to actually play the game then I can handle rules stuff.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Unfortunately 3e & 4e D&D are not well designed for this approach; unlike previous editions, C&C, and older games like BRP Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, or d6 Star Wars.

I think the complexity of modern games must be a factor in deterring some new players. Certainly I'm deterred from 4e by the complexity of running a character even at 1st level. Savage Worlds and the FATE system are other things where there are non-intuitive elements that deter me.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Unfortunately 3e & 4e D&D are not well designed for this approach; unlike previous editions, C&C, and older games like BRP Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, or d6 Star Wars.

I think the complexity of modern games must be a factor in deterring some new players. Certainly I'm deterred from 4e by the complexity of running a character even at 1st level. Savage Worlds and the FATE system are other things where there are non-intuitive elements that deter me.

Simpler rules systems (or "lite" or whatever term you prefer) tend to hand a lot more authority and control to the GM. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your preferences, but it is fairly common to hear complaints about "GM fiat". Each step away from an exisiting chart or table or concrete result in a rulebook is a step closer to GM fiat.

Now, I'm a fan of fiat -- I think, assuming you have a good GM that tends toward "Yes" as an answer -- it produces better games (whatever "better" means to the players at that particular table). When a player says they want to knock an enemy over a ledge, for example, a looser rules system and good GM are more likely to produce a result fun and pleasing to the player. A more detailed rules system is going to have a more consistent result, which may or may not please or be fun to the player, depending on the likelihood of the intended action. An emergent consequence is that in more detailed rules systems, then, players tend to only try things if the chance of success, as determined by the rules, is higher.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I guess it comes down to how much that appreciation is "worth". Sure, you appreciate that your Grandma tried, but, that still doesn't change the fact that you hate that sweater and never wear it.

Exactly. That's how you handle it. You thank your Grandma for her thoughtful gift, and then you just don't wear it. Similarly, if you don't like the DM's game, you thank him for his time, and then you just don't come back for the next session.

You don't tell the DM that you don't care how much work he's put into his "backyard barbecue" campaign, what you want is "gourmet cuisine."

In my opinion, that's as rude and inconsiderate as telling your Grandma that you hate the sweater, and next time she should buy you a pair of pants.

 

[FireLance]

Exactly. That's how you handle it. You thank your Grandma for her thoughtful gift, and then you just don't wear it. Similarly, if you don't like the DM's game, you thank him for his time, and then you just don't come back for the next session.

You don't tell the DM that you don't care how much work he's put into his "backyard barbecue" campaign, what you want is "gourmet cuisine."

In my opinion, that's as rude and inconsiderate as telling your Grandma that you hate the sweater, and next time she should buy you a pair of pants.

Like I said earlier, players may be intellectually aware that the DM has worked hard, but they are unlikely to respond positively on an emotional level if the game is not something that they want.

It's the same in this case. Intellectually, you may know that your grandma is just being nice, and you do the polite thing by thanking her. Nonetheless, the fact remains that you don't like the sweater, and all the effort your grandma put into getting it for you is effectively wasted.

However - and here's the crux - if you are able to find some nice, polite way to communicate to your grandma that you would actually prefer a nice set of pants, and she keeps buying you sweaters anyway, it does make you wonder whether your grandma is really listening to you, and whether she's paying any attention at all to what you're saying (but you'd still love her and do the polite thing, regardless).

Of course, this is not a perfect analogy since your grandma probably has no emotional investment in continuing to give you sweaters.

Still, I see nothing wrong with at least telling the DM what sort of games you would prefer him to run, and it is possible to do so without being rude. If you can work things out, fine. Otherwise, as suggested, the DM would be better off trying to find other players who do appreciate the work he's put into running the game.