"Lazy" GMs and "overworked" players

[Voneth]

In a recent disscussion, a fellow GM said he was accused of being lazy by his player for using an abbreviated XP system vs. using the full blown thing.

That comment reminded me of the worst group I ever had to DM. Their best quote went like this.
"Well, that can't be right. My old GM never used such a rule."
"It's right there in the book."
"It can't be right, 'he' never used that rule."
"Your GM made up a house rule, look it up and you will see it."
"Oh, I never read the rulebooks, that's for the DM to do."

It turns out the player never /bought/ a rulebook either. He thought that all gaming expenses should be on the DM, it was his game after all.

The same group accused me of offering no "roleplaying" to their sessions. Turned out that "roleplaying" meant puzzles traps and they thought all that "soap opera stuff" was just a set up for the module that had been dragged out too much. I swear that group almost burned me out from RPGs forever.

So what is the dividing line you are comfrotable with when it comes to DM/player repsonsiblity? Should DMs have several adventures ready so PC can pick and chose at whim where they want to go? Should players buy all the snacks and offer footrubs to the GM?

 

[Tsyr]

Perhaps I'm not the best person to answer this... I both DM and play in multiple groups, so I really don't have a clear line I can draw, BUT...

IMO, it's a case of "no such thing as too many backups"... Players should be responsible for everything in the PHB, of course, and they should be (IMO) at least aware of things like EXP tables (How much to a level, etc), things like that.

They should spring for at least the PHB, if they continue to play for very long. I wouldn't expect anyone who just tries a game to buy the book, but if your going to keep playing, you should at least get the PHB.

They should keep track of their own data... experience, treasure, ect. The DM shouldn't need to keep track of that stuff in the long run.

A DM should know... well, everything, really, but he should make it clear at the beginning of the session that the session is his , not the players old DMs.

 

[kengar]

I've always tried to make the distinction between "open" and "closed" ended campaigns.

In open-ended campaigns, I will provided a setting that is at least moderately complete so the party doesn't "go off the edge of the map" so to speak. But I ask my players to let me know what kinds of things they are interested in playing so I can have a hope of preparing something fun for all.

A closed-ended campaign has a definite goal. "The Duke hires you to find & kill the Lich King." etc. Any radical deviation from that goal will be counter-productive, so I expet the players to stay on task a bit more.

I always expect players to be familiar enough with the rules that they can run their characters. As far as other rules go, I let them know up front if their are any "House Rules" that would directl;y affect how they play their characters.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I our group we take turn at GMing. This means that the players know enough not to push the GM too hard - after all, they could feel the same pain the next time around.

Anyone who GMs frequently is likely to buy the core book of the current RPG system, but that's not actually neccessary - we have no problems with lending each other books.

As for preparing stuff in advance... I usually have a vague idea where I want to go with my current campaign (I can visualize the main villains lurking in the background, for example), but I only draw maps and write up the stats for enemies for locations that I believe the PCs could go to in the next session.

The rest is improvised, or planned between individual sessions. It mostly seems to work...

 

[VorpalBunny]

"Oh, I never read the rulebooks, that's for the DM to do."

It turns out the player never /bought/ a rulebook either. He thought that all gaming expenses should be on the DM, it was his game after all.

[RANT]Sounds a lot like my group now. We've been playing a 3e Forgotten Realms game on and off for close to a year now and there are players in my game that still don't have the book. Not to mention the players that have the book and haven't read it.

There was one player in my group who really wanted to try Star Wars d20. Kept bringing it up every game. Finally, we relented - I stopped the FR game and started a SW campaign. He still has yet to buy the rulebook (of course, I should have known - this was the guy we had to force to buy the Player's Handbook).[/RANT]

I agree with Tsyr. Ideally, players should at least own the Player's Handbook. If anything in the "splat books" interests them, they should own a copy of that too. Each player should keep tabs on his/her character's experience.

The DM should have a good operational knowledge of the rules, and the setting his is playing in. It should not be his responsibility to buy every rulebook that the players will be using. If the DM allows players to choose their next adventure (personally I don't, but I give them clues about the general direction the campaign will be taking) then as a courtesy he should have at least two adventures for them to choose from.

 

[Davelozzi]

Of course, these kinds of things will vary from group to group. In my group, four players (out of nine) bought PHBs and two of those four also bought other related books (Psionics Handbook, Relics & Rituals). For me this is a pleasant change, in the past only one of my players has ever bought a book for a campaign (Thri-Kreen of Athas for a Dark Sun campaign - great book, by the way). I prefer that the players know the rules, but as long as they know the basics that apply to their own character, that's good enough for me. I don get bent out of shape if they don't to read the whole rulebook, although it's nice when they do.

I've come to accept this as the way it is. I'm the game junkie, so and frankly I'm going to be buying the stuff either way. Generally players buy their character's mini, I buy the rest of the stuff and then expect them to let me off the hook and take care of pizza and drinks for the game.

As for record keeping, I prefer to do it myself anyway so that I can have everything on hand when planning between sessions.

As for adventures, I generally try to keep them fed with hooks to go from one adventure to another. As long as everyone's having fun this works fine. If the active plots get wrapped up or the players seem to be getting bored I'll ask what kind of stuff their interested in doing next and then go from there.

 

[Zappo]

I guess that varies with the group. In my group, we always only have one copy of anything (except for one player, who is also a DM for another group). That's kept at my house (where we usually gather), and players borrow a book if they need it. As for money, we divvied the expenses for the core books, and players who are interested in a particular book buy it.

A player IMC is free not to read the books, but that's his loss since I won't explain anything but the basics. I may suggest ways to make a better developed character, but I won't suggest ways to min/max it. If you miss the feat which would have made you a killing machine because you are too lazy to read the book, your loss.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Wow. All but three players has the PHB, DMG and MM. One player has the DotF and S&F, I have MotW and Songs and Silence (no one has the magic users one yet). I have MotP, which is the BEST. Beyond that I don't think anyone has anything but we all are expected to know the rules. Obviously we dont ut we should either be learning or have knowledge of the rules so when you say "I want to jump this 50 foot pit" you know where you should go in the book to look up specific rules or just know what you need to roll to make it.

3 of us DM (Out of 8, soon to be 7). Both DM and Player are responsible to abiding by the rules. House rules per DM is allowed but we often discuss those and the other DMs accept it as a rule or go by the book.

If I DMed a new group I would expect players to learn the rules. (PERIOD). Borrow or Buy a book, read the SRD or discuss it in detail with someone, but learn the rules.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

In my group, there are two or three players who are willing to really get into the rules, and who are willing to answer the questions of the others. This is a huge relief for me as a GM, especially if I don't remember all the rules.

If I GMed for a new group, I wouldn't expect them to know all the rules at first, but I would expect them to make some effort at learning them.

Oh, and I'd make sure that the players who know the least about the system don't play the spellcasters...

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

Boy, do I feel lucky.

I have run games with basically the same 7 core players over the last 4 years. All but 2 have a copy of the PHB, MM, and DMG.

The other two:

My wife has her own PHB, but has access to my other books should she desire to look.

The other player just moved back into the area and has just started 3E. He will end up buying all three books at some point, I am sure (he had all three for 2E).

I, of course, have the largest selection of books beyond the core material, but others have various other splat/source books as well.

Having players who know the rules, and have the books, keeps me honest!

Taren Nighteyes