Player Responsibility for the GM's Fun??

[Quillogist]

Seth Skorkowsky has a good video on his thoughts about the RPG Social Contract. Essentially, he explains his philosophy on what responsibilities and expectations are required of everyone participating in a Tabletop Role-Playing group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBymJBOjwEc

He has a lot of amusing videos about the best and worst habits of players and GMs.

He agrees with those who believe that the social contract includes helping all players at the table have fun, and that the GM is one of the players (albeit with unique responsibilities compared to players).

 

[Imaculata]

When I play in a campaign, I'm always aware that I'm responsible for the fun of my fellow players, and of the DM. So I don't always think like my character, I sometimes make choices that seem like they would be the most fun for the game. I'll team up with a character that clashes with my own, because I know it will provide a lot of comedy to the rest of the group. Or I'll decide 'not' to do something, so another PC can have their moment in the spotlight.

For example, the character that I'm currently playing is very focused on diplomacy. So it would make sense to have my character do as much of the social checks as possible. But I deliberately make sure that my character is not always around to do that, so other PC's can have a go at it. I know the game is more fun that way for my fellow players and my DM.

A few sessions ago I deliberately had my skeptical character team up with the most mystical character in the group, in order to get a lot of comic relief from their interactions. I joined this PC to a magic shop, so my character got to react in his usual skeptical way to all the obviously magical things in the store. It provided a lot of comic relief for the rest of the group. So sometimes I go with what provides the most fun, or what seems the most interesting for the story.

This is especially true if you are playing in a horror themed campaign. If your character never took risks, it would undermine a lot of the suspense. But sometimes you'll have your character go in the spooky basement on purpose, simply because it makes for a lot of entertainment.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, if I'm the GM and I'm no longer having fun, I'll tell my players and quite likely just quit the campaign. I wouldn't say it's a 'responsibility' of players to ensure I'm having fun, but it definitely helps if they don't get on my nerves all the time There can be reasons that don't have anything to do with the players, e.g. a kind of 'burnout'. As always, talking to your players regularly is key. Gather and give feedback to check if everyone's still having a good time. React to criticism, assuming it's fair and reasonable; make adjustments if needed, but sometimes it's just time for someone else to take over.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm asking do the players have a responsibility to the DM in helping make the game fun for him

Yes. I am of the opinion everyone at the table is responsible for each others fun, more so than their own fun. If I try to make the game for four other people sat round my table, then in turn I have four people trying to make the game fun for me, rather than just one if we each focused on ourselves.

and if so what are those responsibilities.

Just off the top of my head, not an extensive list, and also depending on the game and setting they might not all apply all the time.

a) Make a character that is motivated to adventure.
b) Make a character that plays well with others in the group.
c) Arrive on time with the proper equipment (dice, characters sheet, pencils, etc.)
d) Engage with the world and the plot hooks presented.
e) Know you character, so you don't have to keep checking books everytime you want to do something.
f) Pay attention even when it isn't your turn. Alternatively be preparing for your turn, if there is something you do need to look up.
g) Interact with the other characters in the group, ask their opinions, challenge or support their opinions.

 

[Mad_Jack]

As mentioned, the word responsibility has a connotation to it that doesn't quite fit. A responsibility seems like something that would be imposed upon someone by the social contract, where doing what you can to ensure that the rest of the group (both players and DM) are having fun is more of something that should be willingly taken on by the player...

By participating in the game as a player or DM, you have a responsibility to not be a dick and not ruin anyone else's fun. That's pretty much one of the pillars of the social contract in a gaming group. Most people fulfill that responsibility without any great conscious effort on their part since they're not naturally an arse-hat or particularly invested in going out of their way to be one.

Making sure that your participation in the game means the other players and the DM have more fun is something you should strive for if you have any interest in being a "Good Player" or "Good DM"... That requires willing effort and active ongoing commitment from you.

For my part, when the other players/DM are having more fun, it makes the game more fun for me. And since it's all about me, lol, I do what I can to make my presence at the table an enjoyable experience for everyone else.
Now, sure, I could go through an entire campaign just not ruining people's fun, carrying my share of the load, and end up being "the other fighter", or "what'shisname, that played the cleric", but I get more enjoyment out of the game by being proactive about making that game something worth telling war stories about, whether that means I'm in the spotlight, I'm creating justifications for why my character is doing something out-of-character in order to bite on the plot hook the DM just threw out, or even sacrificing my character to give somebody else a chance at an epic glory moment...

 

[Morrus]

I can’t help feeling that if fun requires that much effort, there are probably other problems going in. Hanging out with your friends doing a thing you all enjoy pretty much makes its own fun.

 

[billd91]

As mentioned, the word responsibility has a connotation to it that doesn't quite fit. A responsibility seems like something that would be imposed upon someone by the social contract, where doing what you can to ensure that the rest of the group (both players and DM) are having fun is more of something that should be willingly taken on by the player...

I think you (and a few others) are reading way too much into the connotation of responsibility. It's not some kind of formal obligation undertaken with the utmost seriousness. It's recognizing that in this particularly social situation, you are obligated to be a positive contributor rather than take on all the attributes of a piece of furniture. And if we aren't responsible to be good to and for each other whenever we're together, then what's the point of hanging out in the first place?
Honestly, people look at responsibility as some special thing when, really, it should be something that drives us at our core.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I can’t help feeling that if fun requires that much effort, there are probably other problems going in. Hanging out with your friends doing a thing you all enjoy pretty much makes its own fun.

It doesn't take a great amount of effort to make a conscious decision to actively pursue having more fun. Sure, If I'm hanging out with my friends we'll have fun with whatever we're doing - but then it wouldn't matter if we were playing D&D, going fishing, catching a movie or whatever else, because the whole point of the exercise would be that we're hanging out with friends.

But this isn't a discussion about hanging out with friends, it's about playing a game. What if I'm not playing with friends?
A gaming group assembled from an online posting might not have anything in common with each other outside the game session. And I'm certainly not paying a $35 entrance fee to a gaming convention for the privilege of "hanging out" with a table full of strangers. If I'm playing AL, my purpose for being there is to play the game and help the party complete the adventure in the 4 hours of allotted time - with a bunch of people I may not know and might not normally hang out with under any other circumstances. I may even actively dislike them. But I can make a decision: I can choose whether to allow the experience to become an unpleasant one (the blame for which is then entirely on me), I can go into it with an open mind and in good faith and maybe we'll all have a good time, maybe even a great time, at the table and maybe we won't, or I can make a proactive decision that I'm going to do what I can to attempt make it the best. game. evar.
Your opinion may differ, but I definitely think it's worth making the effort to try to achieve the last one.

I think you (and a few others) are reading way too much into the connotation of responsibility. It's not some kind of formal obligation undertaken with the utmost seriousness. It's recognizing that in this particularly social situation, you are obligated to be a positive contributor rather than take on all the attributes of a piece of furniture. And if we aren't responsible to be good to and for each other whenever we're together, then what's the point of hanging out in the first place?
Honestly, people look at responsibility as some special thing when, really, it should be something that drives us at our core.

And that last sentence is why I choose to take the concept so seriously. Some responsibilities are thrust upon us by various aspects of life such as our work or the legal system, and some responsibilities are things we choose through our own free will to take on ourselves. The ones I choose to take upon myself are the ones I take with the utmost seriousness.

 

[Bagpuss]

I can’t help feeling that if fun requires that much effort, there are probably other problems going in. Hanging out with your friends doing a thing you all enjoy pretty much makes its own fun.

I think a lot of it can come naturally, and groups that stick together over along time establish for themselves what is fun for them. Certain things work for certain players and certain groups in certain situations that might not work in others. There isn't one size fits all, more guidelines. But it clearly doesn't come naturally to everyone or every group otherwise there wouldn't be some many "Help me!" posts.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I believe that every person sitting at the table is responsible for the fun of every person sitting at the table.

If you are doing something that is reducing the fun for anyone - GM or player - then you need to be asking yourself "should I really be doing this?".

Now, the answer might still be "yes, I'm going to do this" - but I believe you have an obligation to at least put some serious thought into what you are doing (as opposed to, for example, just throwing out the "It's what my character would do" excuse).