Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asha'man" data-source="post: 4575365" data-attributes="member: 52424">It is a commonly expressed sentiment both on these boards and in the community at large that "If a DM wants to 'tell a story', he should get away from the screen and go write a book", or words to that effect. On reflection, though, I think that's really both rude and disingenious. Of course, what most people mean when they say this is that the players' desires and decisions should have an impact on the story and that railroading the players through a plot "scripted" long in advance is bad. I don't think anyone would argue with that.  But the DM is a participant in the activity too, not just a facilitator. He does, and for fairness' sake let's say 70% because I've met some very involved and dedicated players, but 70% of the work required to have a campaign, what with making NPCs, dungeons and developing the setting, but also planning for the progression of a campaign with antagonists' plots, in-game events and larger story arcs. Of course they want that work to pay off in the course of the game. My point here is not that DMing is in any way a thankless or onerous task, or that DMs should get more "credit" or privilege, in most groups I know the atmosphere between DM and players is one of mutual appreciation, and most DMs I've met DM because they enjoy the activity. But that is kind of the point: Why do the DMs like to DM? There can of course be many reasons. Some like to exercise their skills with game mechanics and use them to challenge the players. Some like in-character roleplay, and DMing is fun for them because they can portray many different characters. For some the game is a contest, and albeit (hopefully, or the game will crash and burn) a friendly one between the PCs and the BBEG, not players and DM, no less of a battle of wits for that.I think, though, that what most DMs get their enjoyment from is in one sense story-telling. Not, necessarily, in a "DM of the Rings" way, where they have it all mapped out in advance (this is the style 'go write a book' is meant to decry) but in a spirit of curiosity and desire to show off their creativity. When a DM places a hook for an adventure or story arc, or even pitches a campaign idea if it's focused enough, they are in effect saying "Hey guys, wouldn't it be cool if [You got to fight X/you found X/you found X but it was cursed/You had to make an alliance with X or there would be war/X betrayed you, how would you stop the war then?] Because this is really what planning adventures as a DM comes down to. Sometimes the players say, in effect, "Not really" and go off to do their own thing, but if that happens every time you will be pretty frustrated, and I'd say rightfully so. Again: A DM puts in a lot of effort, and of course he'll want to see the payoff happen. Do you think Sepulchrave, Shemeska and Piratecat don't have stories they want to explore through their games? And are those games any less awesome for that? I can't imagine it should be so. The point is that there's give and take, there's dialogue both implicit and explicit; the players have a fair share of input too in what the game ultimately becomes. Again: The DM is a participant in the campaign too, not just a facilitator. And most DMs (and most groups) want a game to be more than a string of dissociated scenarios, they want to be able to look back on it and answer the question "What was that campaign about?" with something concrete. D&D is, at least the way I see it, a creative endeavour. It's just that the appropriate analogy of the DM/players dynamic is much more like a screenwriter pitching films to a studio than a novelist giving a live reading of his work to an audience. Opinions or comments? Objections?</blockquote>

Verification