How Accommodating to Player Preferences Should the GM Be?

[Umbran]

Hm. I wonder why that doesn't happen?

Perhaps, under some circumstances, for some kinds of campaigns, restrictions are good sometimes?

Perhaps, players (some players — they aren't a monolith) don't always know what's best for every campaign? Perhaps, what players want and what will make a campaign good (for a certain view of "good"), aren't always the same thing?

So, the flaw is that reasoning also applies to the GM. "GM" is not a magic state that gives someone superior powers of cognition such that they always know what is (or will be) best either.

Playing RPGs is a collaborative effort, so it pays to, you know, collaborate.

 

[Guest 6801718]

How compelling.



A tool I'm not using, to address a problem I'm not having, perfectly suited to a style of campaign I'm not running. Ah, yes, of course, it all makes sense now.

I never said anything about addressing any specific problems. I just suggested that if a player comes to you with something, talk to them and explore it. No one is trying to take your games away from you.

Hey, if your group works that's great. Having a regular game group is difficult no matter what. If your players have fun, awesome! I just find it strange that the suggestion you talk to your players and see what they want was such an offensive idea for you. If you like being the guy in the big chair, that's great. Some people love to run more than play. I used to run games in the same way. I did everything and people came to "my" game. Now I do it differently and my games are better. My players are more engaged. There is less work for me. Everyone wins. You can actually try something different and learn from it. It won't even hurt to try. Worse that happens is that you don't like it and go back to the way things were.

 

[Umbran]

As long as you're doubling down and refusing to grow in any way.

Mod Note:
Hey. Don't make this personal. It isn't about the speaker.

 

[Umbran]

How compelling.



A tool I'm not using, to address a problem I'm not having, perfectly suited to a style of campaign I'm not running. Ah, yes, of course, it all makes sense now.

Mod Note:
Please be aware that use of sarcasm, while perhaps feeling good, generally works against people understanding your view as valid.

If you are snotty in your delivery, folks will take it that you are not disagreeing because of some solid principles - they will take it that you are just a disagreeable, snotty person.

Please be kind to others. Even when you disagree. Especially when you disagree.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

So, the flaw is that reasoning also applies to the GM. "GM" is not a magic state that gives someone superior powers of cognition such that they always know what is (or will be) best either.

Playing RPGs is a collaborative effort, so it pays to, you know, collaborate.

I love this reply so much. Can we pin this to the top of every RPG book?

Also, here is a very useful tool for all game systems = C.A.T.S (link)

It gives everyone a chance to talk ahead of time about what they want out of the game, note it down and use it as guidelines moving forward each session (not hard and fast rules, but more a set of guidelines...)

 

[overgeeked]

I love this reply so much. Can we pin this to the top of every RPG book?

Also, here is a very useful tool for all game systems = C.A.T.S (link)

It gives everyone a chance to talk ahead of time about what they want out of the game, note it down and use it as guidelines moving forward each session (not hard and fast rules, but more a set of guidelines...)

Up to a point, yes. But one person is putting in roughly 100x the work of everyone else. They need to be incredibly invested in that game otherwise it falls apart. Games where the referee is 100% on board will last longer than games they're less invested in. If the players are bringing ideas the referee does not care for, saying they should suck it up and run the game anyway is a great way to doom a campaign to failure before it even starts.

 

[MGibster]

So, the flaw is that reasoning also applies to the GM. "GM" is not a magic state that gives someone superior powers of cognition such that they always know what is (or will be) best either.

Of course being a GM isn't a magical state giving someone superior powers of cognition. The reverse is true. Having superior powers of cognition is why they're the GM in the first place.

Playing RPGs is a collaborative effort, so it pays to, you know, collaborate.

I agree. When it comes to accommodations, it's best to take a look at what is requested on a case by a case basis. There are too many variations to issue blanket statements in the affirmative or the negative. Players should be mindful of what accommodations they ask for and the GM should put some thought into whether accommodating the player is a good idea or not.

 

[Reynard]

Having superior powers of cognition is why they're the GM in the first place.

Oof.

People GM for lots of reasons, but I don't think any of them amount to being smarter.

 

[KYRON45]

Oof.

People GM for lots of reasons, but I don't think any of them amount to being smarter.

This is true....I've DMed and I'm pretty dumb.

 

[Umbran]

Up to a point, yes. But one person is putting in roughly 100x the work of everyone else.

The hyperbole doesn't help your case.

When you blow the amount of extra work so out of proportion, you are communicating to us an unwillingness to think reasonably about what's happening.

They need to be incredibly invested in that game otherwise it falls apart.

EN World demographics lean heavily to GMs, so I'm going to guess the majority of the people you are talking to run games. You are not speaking to a bunch of players who don't know what has to get done for a game to run - this is not "they" who are invested. It is "we".

Games where the referee is 100% on board will last longer than games they're less invested in. If the players are bringing ideas the referee does not care for, saying they should suck it up and run the game anyway is a great way to doom a campaign to failure before it even starts.

The implicit opposite of that - saying the players should suck it up and take what they are given - isn't a whole lot better. Neither is the seemingly implicit framing of the relationship as, "I put in all the work, so you all owe me!"

To be frank, if the activity of prepping a game isn't itself a hobby activity that pays for itself, burnout is apt to come for you. If it pays for itself, while the players should respect it, they don't owe you much for it.

In the end, though, it seems most of us are talking about collaboration - a bit of open minded discussion and just giving the players' ideas a fair shake of full consideration before dismissing them.

Is that anathema?