It's Not the GM's Job to Make Sure People Have Fun

[Piratecat]

I disagree. Screw that, I want to make my game so much fun that they're talking about it for weeks afterward.

As a GM, it's my job to remove impediments to people enjoying themselves. If they've had a lousy day and want to hit something, I make sure there's combat. If they want to solve a problem without combat, I make sure there's some sort of non-combat solution, even if it has consequences.

This isn't going to make someone happy if they're determined not to enjoy themselves. But my primary motivation is to make sure that any lack of fun is their decision and not my fault. If my players are having fun I probably am too, and vice versa! I don't want to play with a GM who doesn't feel that way.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I've never heard anyone say this who didn't mean the DM should be considering the needs and desires of the players when crafting a session, but the players also must adhere to a social contract to not be jerks.

I don't have any problem with this statement, but to be honest, I don't consciously consider the needs or desires of my players when I plan or run a session. I just do what I would want the DM to do if I were playing.

I guess that must work, because my players keep coming back for more. Maybe if I had players who wanted different things from the game than I want when I'm playing, I'd have unhappier players.

 

[Umbran]

They are. The initial presentation of the adventure is just a springboard. It is up to the players to latch on to that and start the perpetual feedback loop of fun.

Per what Fifth Element said, above, I think you are taking "making sure they have fun" or "providing the fun" a bit too far.

If I'm putting together a birthday party for a friend, my job is to make sure the party goers have a good time. That does not imply they are entirely passive lumps lying there like boneless chickens waiting for me to intubate them and pour Wacky Fun Juice down their throats. But I am responsible for organizing, setting things in motion, ensuring the appropriate setting, and possibly dealing with issues that are impediments to fun.

 

[Jdvn1]

Seems to me that the GM should try to make the game fun. Also, the players should try to make the game fun, too. If a player is making the game less fun for everyone, he should change his style or be asked to leave, as he's clearly not a fit for the group.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What you should feel responsible for doing is creating an environment in which everyone could have fun.

That's roughly my philosophy.

I do what I can, but I don't make any guarantees.

Don't get me wrong, I'll work hard to make my campaigns work, I'll take suggestions, I'll tweek things...but if you don't have fun in my game, so be it.

Ultimately, no matter how hard I work, some aspects of my game- my choice of RPGs, my playstyle, my HRs, my overall campaign - may not jibe with what makes gaming fun for you. I simply can't MAKE you have fun.

 

[The Shaman]

Everyone at the table has an equal share in bringing the fun.

One player has a different set of tools for doing that.

 

[pemerton]

You speak as if providing the adventure material and providing the fun are separate acts.

I'd instead say that providing the adventure material, and managing the run through the material are the primary ways the GM provides fun for the players - several birds with one stone.

Agreeing with this - for many groups, I imagine, the GM's job includes providing adventure material and running it which permits the players to engage via the PCs they have chosen to play. The GM has to provide setting and antagonism in which the players can then play their protagonists. For this sort of approach to play, the GM doing his/her job properly includes providing the fun via the adventure material and referreeing thereof.

They are. The initial presentation of the adventure is just a springboard. It is up to the players to latch on to that and start the perpetual feedback loop of fun.

I might agree with this, depending on exactly what is meant. I don't think the players have a duty to latch onto any old adventure presented by the GM. The GM should be presenting material that provides a springboard for these players with these PCs.

Things are different, I guess, in either a pure sandbox or a pure adventure path. If everyone's agreed to play an AP, then I think the players have as much of a duty to make a fist of it as does the GM. Even in a pure sandbox, however, I'd still expect the GM to pay some attention to the players in populating the world. For example, if every player builds a PC with nautical skills, or with riding skills, it would be pretty unreasonable (IMO) for the GM to start the sandbox in a bonedry desert badlands, with no oceans (or grassy plains, as the case may be) for thousands of miles around.

 

[Goonalan]

In the long term my job as a DM is to bring on the fun, but that involves (in most cases) a little collusion- talk to players, as them what they want to be doing at Paragon, attempt to find ways to keep them constantly involved with their characters decisions etc. Example- Rock (played by Akshay) Dwarf Fighter was rolled up as a Fighting/Killing machine.

At 7th Level the players were searching through an ancient Dwarven Creation Forge, and laying waste to Dwarf-forged (work it out for yourself), then they discover a whole bunch of paperwork about about a Dwarven special project, project R0, by the inventor Creator Klum. Seconds later RO-CK gets put together and the room lights up. And Akshay who knew nothing about my surprise, well he has a choice, I'm not saying is him... Me and the player have an entire avenue of 'fun' opened up. Later, after the whooping and the metal-man jokes have worn thin they discover project R1CK. And thus ROCK has more purpose than he did last week, and I have massive opportunities to foreshadow, well who knows what but I have ideas.

Farkill keeps seeing ghosts, ghosts of dead Dwarves, me and Zoran, who plays Farkill, know his backstory- only I however know how it is going to impinge on his present life. Longstory short Farkill has pissed off Moradin bad, screaming in game (RP) and cursing his God he smashes his hammer into the ground and I calmly state that 10,000 tons of rock and stone peel away and fall into the abyss- ending a traumatic/climactic encounter in a matter of seconds- sending a dozen Gnolls and more Hyenas to their instant death; and a Large Shadow Dragon in full retreat. Farkill has the power, Moradin loves a sinner- and the player, the player giggles furiously as the other players scream various epithets, all good.

Then there's...

Fun, moment by moment, everybody wants and needs that but it's hard to nail down, moment by moment. As a DM I need to know what the players like/enjoy/want; then I need to make the story their story- all of them, sure it gets twisty plot-wise but if there's something at stake then the fun/interest, or likelihood of either, factor increases.

I don't neccesarily fudge rolls for fun, or at least not often; actually almost never. I do give my players what they want- provided I can make it work, it's not too counter any of the other PCs (so our bastard Rogue still behaves terribly at times).

A moment about our Rogue, everyone loves him. In game he's a terrible man (Elf), at level 11 he's still completely out for himself, secretly (and not so secretly) reviled at times (which makes the other players laugh- he's a great 'character', the other players laugh even when they know he's robbing them). And so as a DM I ensure that everyone the PCs meet instantly trust him, because... because it just works better that way- women swoon, if the PCs save the day then the patron always thinks that the Rogue is some Paladin, or Brave-Sir-Knight. While Cathal, the actual Brave-Sir-Knight silently fumes... People trust him with their lives, live-savings and wives. And the other PCs giggle behind their hands as Lucan (the Rogue), urolls '33' Bluff and explains he is Acolyte of Ioun in search of somewhere to lay his weary head for the night, sisters (with a wink).

So fun facilitator, and the way to do it is to know what the PCs want (IMHO), moment by moment then do your job well, describe the action with a nod to the cinema and action movies. Make the plot/story immersive and involving directly every player.

Nothings guaranteed, as stated elsewhere it requires a high degree of collusion but as long as all players are agreed that they are sat around the table in the hope of having fun in the first place...

The responsibility is not solely anyone's, the DM however has all the resources to a story/adventure/scene into a memorable moment in which the fun comes to the fore.

Cheers PDR

And I haven't even touched on Farkill's Ghost-Powered Holy Chainsaw of Moradin, or how and why they found a clan of jet-black skinned Orcs (which they rescued from slavery by the Duergar); jet-black skinned save for their hands on which the pigment had worn thin- the reason, the tribe possessed (and later gave over to the PCs) a pair of Mobile Phones (no signal or battery) and yet the 'Mobies' still retain the ability to text.

 

[firesnakearies]

I just do what I would want the DM to do if I were playing.

This is my policy, and my standard. If I've done this, I consider myself to have done a good job as a DM. I don't feel that ensuring the fun of the players is my duty, no more than they should be ensuring my fun.

I strive to be the DM that I'd want running a game for me. If the players also like the same things I like, then they're going to have a good time. If they don't, well, that's not my problem. They can find another game, if mine doesn't suit them.

I don't have any problem finding plenty of people who want to play in my games, and have to turn people away for lack of room. So, I guess I must be providing enough fun.

 

[Nagol]

I disagree that the DM's job does not include making sure the players have fun. However, you shouldn't read "making sure" too literally. Obviously the only thing a DM can do is maximize the chance that the players will have fun, he cannot literally ensure it. So in that sense I agree with the article.

It's semantics here; no DM can ever "make sure" the players have fun. But in the ordinary use of language, the reasonable interpretation of this is that the DM should do everything reasonably in his ability to help the players have fun, keeping in mind that he counts as a player for this purpose.

And that's what the DM should do. It is one of the responsibilities of DMing.

Making sure the players all have fun is much like having everyone agreeing to the same pizza toppings. Often the best that can be found is everyone compromising.

I'd agree if we include the qualifier within the context of the original social contract.

If I put together a game of gritty, low-level, low-magic Harn and the players want to play then if a player isn't having fun and would prefer a higher level of power fantasy, too bad. It is his responsibility to determine if he'd have more fun doing a different activity and leaving the campaign to those having fun or continue playing. It is not my responsibility to adjust the social contract with everyone else in the group to accomodate that one player.