Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[Ariosto]

It is not the GM's responsibility to care more about my life than I do. Neither is it my responsibility to care more about the game than does the GM, who has invested additional time and energy in preparation and must deal not only with me but with the other players.

The GM cannot read my mind. Neither can I read the GM's mind.

I have a responsibility to myself, and to my fellows -- including the GM.

This is a social undertaking! It is a team effort! We can actually talk with one other, instead of having to play guessing games!

There is a saying, "There is no 'I' in TEAM."

It is everyone's responsibility to communicate and cooperate in order to make the get-together enjoyable for everyone.

You GMs treating players as not on your team, and you players treating GMs as not on your team, are doing yourselves a disservice.

 

[Lanefan]

It is not the GM's responsibility to care more about my life than I do. Neither is it my responsibility to care more about the game than does the GM, who has invested additional time and energy in preparation and must deal not only with me but with the other players.

The GM cannot read my mind. Neither can I read the GM's mind.

I have a responsibility to myself, and to my fellows -- including the GM.

This is a social undertaking! It is a team effort! We can actually talk with one other, instead of having to play guessing games!

There is a saying, "There is no 'I' in TEAM."

It is everyone's responsibility to communicate and cooperate in order to make the get-together enjoyable for everyone.

I'm with you up to here, at least as far as out-of-game relations go. In-game is a whole other issue: PCs can and will be independent, DMs will throw puzzles and guessing games at the party, and so forth.

You GMs treating players as not on your team, and you players treating GMs as not on your team, are doing yourselves a disservice.

But keep in mind that once the dice start rolling there's also a certain amount of adversarial-ness in the player-DM relationship: the DM is trying to make life miserable (or shorter) for the PCs, while the PCs are trying to somehow defeat whatever the DM is throwing at them.

Out-of-game, however, your observations are still quite right.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

But keep in mind that once the dice start rolling there's also a certain amount of adversarial-ness in the player-DM relationship: the DM is trying to make life miserable (or shorter) for the PCs, while the PCs are trying to somehow defeat whatever the DM is throwing at them.

That depends on the game, doesn't it?

The reason to play a game like that is because we find it fun. We are still on the same team when it comes to the ultimate goal of having fun.

People who think the GM's job is to make it hard for the players to have fun, or vice-versa, are seriously mixed up.

I want the DM to let me get on with making my adventure. I want there to be great risks, and commensurate rewards, and the chance to triumph or die trying. I want the outcome to hinge on more than just tosses of the dice, to challenge my skill as well.

Just give me an arm's length of cold steel, and with it I will write my story.

A player who instead wants to be told a story will do better with a GM who wants to tell one. The same holds for other tastes.

 

[Lanefan]

That depends on the game, doesn't it?

The reason to play a game like that is because we find it fun. We are still on the same team when it comes to the ultimate goal of having fun.

True. You entertain me, and I'll entertain you.

People who think the GM's job is to make it hard for the players to have fun, or vice-versa, are seriously mixed up.

Now here we get into the messy business of defining what is "fun", and that's a morasse from which we may never emerge once we enter...

I want the DM to let me get on with making my adventure. I want there to be great risks, and commensurate rewards, and the chance to triumph or die trying. I want the outcome to hinge on more than just tosses of the dice, to challenge my skill as well.

Excellent, except it's not just *your* adventure. It's the whole game's, if it can be said to be anyone's at all. The DM, the other players and you all have a hand in creating it, and the story that goes with it.

Just give me an arm's length of cold steel, and with it I will write my story.

Brilliant line! Status updated. Thanks!

Lanefan

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hussar has been banned from the thread because he decided to be confrontational with Aristo whom I'd just warned.

I've deleted a couple of argumentative posts in the hope that this can continue in a sensible vein.

Shall we see?

Thanks

 

[Ariosto]

Now here we get into the messy business of defining what is "fun", and that's a morasse from which we may never emerge once we enter...

It's a foetid mire for those who insist that everyone must find the same things fun or non-fun. In the practice of normal human beings carrying on a friendly conversation about a social engagement, we do not need to define fun. We just need to talk about how things are going.

Excellent, except it's not just *your* adventure.

That depends on whether anyone else is involved, doesn't it?

The element of coercion in the modern Monolithic Party contributes, I think, to much indigestion.

 

[Lanefan]

That depends on whether anyone else is involved, doesn't it?

Well, most of the time you've probably got the rest of a party tagging along; so others will therefore be involved...

The element of coercion in the modern Monolithic Party contributes, I think, to much indigestion.

Maybe, but in fairness I don't think I can blame Monolithic Party Syndrome on new-school gaming; I've seen it in old-school games as well. Far too often.

When it's driven by the players I can almost accept it, but when it's driven by the DM via not allowing certain things (e.g. evil characters, cross-gender characters, etc.) it can be bloody annoying*.

* - exception: when the setting in play demands limitations to start out e.g. you're in a Human land thus to start with you'll all be Human; provided those limits will come off during play once the party travels elsewhere.

The biggest arguments come up when the players can't agree on what monolith the party is going to be; usually along Good/non-Good lines. Believe me, I've seen it happen.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

Maybe, but in fairness I don't think I can blame Monolithic Party Syndrome on new-school gaming; I've seen it in old-school games as well. Far too often.

It is a "new school" in itself to me, even if not as new as some others. Some "mechanical" rules sets were designed with it in mind, and some other customs tend to go along with it.

For instance, I think my current AD&D 2e DM would have a heck of a time trying to run his Plot R.R. without the assumption that everyone is basically joined at the hip. The M.P. format also happens to be convenient for the arrangements of that group of players.

I think it's an awkward fit for the AD&D "raw", vs. 3e or 4e (which look like non-starters here), but he has house-ruled quite a bit.

Now, we don't really need the Plot R.R. as players. That's just the way this DM rolls. However, I have seen players' inability to agree on what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.

If players put in just a fraction of the preparation time that the DM does, we can follow the original PHB's advice and agree upon our plans before arriving for the session. For that matter, even old-time tournament scenarios seem often to leave more to plan on the spot than most of what I have read or played of modules from the past decade.

 

[Lanefan]

It is a "new school" in itself to me, even if not as new as some others. Some "mechanical" rules sets were designed with it in mind, and some other customs tend to go along with it.

For instance, I think my current AD&D 2e DM would have a heck of a time trying to run his Plot R.R. without the assumption that everyone is basically joined at the hip. The M.P. format also happens to be convenient for the arrangements of that group of players.

Well, if it works for that group then all's cool.

If my group ever behaved like they were joined at the hip I'd ask them who they were and what they had done with my players.

I think it's an awkward fit for the AD&D "raw", vs. 3e or 4e (which look like non-starters here), but he has house-ruled quite a bit.

I'm not sure. I think you can have a Monolithic Party in any edition...any system, for all that. I also equally think you can have a fractious (but still fun and playable) party in any edition or system; it all depends on what the players want and to some extent what the DM is willing to put up with.

Now, we don't really need the Plot R.R. as players. That's just the way this DM rolls. However, I have seen players' inability to agree on what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.

Fair enough; sometimes the DM has to do that, and maybe she's baited one too many hooks. The players being unable to decide between stories is certainly an improvement over the OP here, where they wouldn't carry a story at all.

If players put in just a fraction of the preparation time that the DM does, we can follow the original PHB's advice and agree upon our plans before arriving for the session. For that matter, even old-time tournament scenarios seem often to leave more to plan on the spot than most of what I have read or played of modules from the past decade.

As a DM, I've no objection at all if they want to spend session time deciding what they're going to do - I prefer it, in fact, as it gives me a chance to see the curveballs coming.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I have seen players' inability to agree on what "story to carry" cited as a problem to which the DM taking responsibility is a solution.

For various reasons, but mostly because of the effect on at-the-table play dynamics, I prefer a party approach to play. To try and achieve this approach, I tend to try and create situations that speak to the backstory of multiple PCs (and hence to the thematic/story concerns of multiple players).