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

[Richards]

This whole concept is exactly why I bring laughing gas to all of my games.

Johnathan

 

[Insight]

It is NOT the GM's job to ensure that everyone is having fun, BUT, if no one is having fun, the GM is doing a poor job.

The "having fun" part of gaming is sort of a group responsibility. The game, however, must be played in the right environment to enable the "fun having". And I don't just mean someone's basement versus a game store versus a nice kitchen table. I mean that all of the players are on board with what's going on, people are engaged and feel like they are participating, and so forth. While some of that is on the GM's shoulders, the players bear some responsibility in it as well. Are the players coming to the game in the right frame of mind? Are they paying attention? Are they engaged?

In the final analysis, the "having fun" part of the game, arguably the most important part of the game, is not any one person's responsibility and it's pretty simplistic to believe that it is.

"Having fun" is not always an all-or-nothing proposition, however. Five players could be having a great time while player #6 sulks in the corner. Is that the GM's fault? Probably not. If all of the players are sulking or not paying attention, this is a likely sign of a GM doing a poor job at something. Could be pacing, could be a lack of direction, could be a lack of preparedness. When no one is having fun, that alone could be laid at the GM's feet.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I did not mean to imply that players must grab any thread provided by the DM. Once the DM and the players have gathered to play and everything is ready then the players need to contribute to the fun regardless of campaign style.

 

[ProtoClone]

I agree and disagree.

To a point it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure all players are being shown consideration when the game is running. People like to feel included and considered in a lot of team focused events.

As the example used, when hosting a party you make sure there is all the proper ingredients for a fun party...like, snacks/food, drinks, entertainment (music or games). You play the host, showing attention to everyone but not lingering on one specific person for too long.

But that really is where your efforts should end. You have made sure all players are catered to and that you have something for everyone in the game. If they are still not having fun then they need only look to themselves for the answer, not the DM.

I believe the saying is "You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think."

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

This is pretty much how I'd word it. The GM isn't solely responsible for the fun of the group, but I definitely think his job is to try.

The only real difference I'd see between the GM and the player's responsibilities (apart from, as The Shaman notes, the set of tools available to the GM) is that the GM probably has more implicit responsibility to engage everyone at the table. I guess this is tied to their toolset difference anyway; only the GM has access to all the various things each player and his or her character is interested in.

 

[Desdichado]

It seems as if the quoted part of the OP is splitting hairs semantically in order to create a strawman to attack. Of course the GM can't do anything about whether or not one of the other players has been arguing with his wife right before the session, or something like that. But when did anyone ever believe that it was his responsibility to deal with that?

Barring that, then also of course its the GM's responsibility to provide a fun game, to pay attention to what his players find fun, and to maximize those aspects so that they have the most fun. If he's not doing that, then he's probably not really a great GM. The whole discussion strikes me as kind of silly, and a statement of the self-evident and obvious. Am I missing something?

 

[Punnuendo]

It is everyone at the table's job to help enable everyone else at the table to have fun. That's why it is a game, right? So is it the GM's job? Yes.

Is it the player's job as well? Yes.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

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

...

Maybe if I had players who wanted different things from the game than I want when I'm playing, I'd have unhappier players.

This happened to me. I want a grittier, more challenging game than my players do.

In fact, each of my players wants something slightly different out of the game...One wants tactical combat, one wants dramatic combat, one wants roleplaying opportunities, one wants high fantasy, one wants deep immersion.

None of these are mutually exclusive, but it can be a hard balancing act.


I find that most people DM as the dm they'd want as a player...and that's a good starting point, but it's not the ideal, in my opinion (unless your players like what you like).

My job as DM is to learn what kind of things the players enjoy (and that I myself enjoy) and try to work together with all the players to achieve all of these goals*.

*Note that what they SAY they want may not be (and may indeed be the opposite) of what they ACTUALLY want. E.G. Many players say they want a challenge even when they want a relatively easy game of stomping face and taking names.

 

[Obryn]

The whole discussion strikes me as kind of silly, and a statement of the self-evident and obvious. Am I missing something?

Nope. That's exactly what it is.

It sounds profound, so people can stroke their chins and nod thoughtfully (and repost it on message boards). But really, it's just setting up and knocking down a strawman.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nope. That's exactly what it is.

It sounds profound, so people can stroke their chins and nod thoughtfully (and repost it on message boards). But really, it's just setting up and knocking down a strawman.

-O

Aw man. Now we are all stuck in the Seinfeld thread.