Responsibility for fun: DMs and/or/vs. Players

[reapersaurus]

Well, it's not fair, but it IS D&D.

Unfortunately, roleplaying games require too much control by the DM for them to work, by the book.
I have come to the conclusion that it is inherently an impractical game design, since it is too dependant on one person to control and be responsible for almost every in-game aspect.

As for out-of-gamer aspects and inter-personal aspects, of course every participant is responsible.

But WITHIN the game, the DM controls it all, man.
A player simply does not have the power or ability to create a plot point or a adventure.
All the player can do is put character hooks into a backstory and then roleplay what he can to bring his creativity to bear, but if the DM isn't gonna take that ball and run with it, there's really not much the player can do.
Even if the player would like to contribute and share the responsibility of story-generation, or encounter-creation or combat/rules, everything goes thru the bottleneck of the DM.

That is a flawed game design, IMO.

*plink plink*

 

[IronWolf]

I think everyone at the table has a stake in making it a fun game. Sure not all the players will be the same playing style, and it is here the DM needs to adapt somewhat and include elements that varying types will find enjoyable. Now from here players will need to compromise and let the combat types excel and wait patiently while they get their turn in the spotlight. Then later in the session when it has drifted to heavy roleplaying the combat types will need to be patient while the roleplaying types get their turn to have their kind of fun.

So I think to have a good game it takes having a DM that can cater to several different player styles and players at the table that can understand their style may not be the focus of the game all the time. I think with this combination you can have a really successful game without everyone having to be the same player type.

 

[Ringmereth]

It's a give-and-take. The DM is responsible for finding out what the players do and don't want from the campaign (level of roleplaying versus combat, depth of story, level, setting and style, etc) and sticking to that. It's his (or her) job to run a decent game, prepare well, and listen to feedback. The players are responsible for adapting their characters to the game, doing a decent job of sticking with the DM's plot hooks, keeping the party cohesive (unless backstabbing is your cup of tea), providing feedback, and bringing new ideas (and plot/adventure hooks) to the table. It's a shared responsibility.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Unfortunately, roleplaying games require too much control by the DM for them to work, by the book.
I have come to the conclusion that it is inherently an impractical game design, since it is too dependant on one person to control and be responsible for almost every in-game aspect.

Wait a mo, this can be solved by the adventure brainstorming at the end of the current adventure; people put in their rough ideas for the dm to digest & refine.

As for the original post, it takes everyone to pitch in for the fun to happen. The dm can cater to all if everyone is prepared to lose a little to accomodate, unless someone won't concede at all, then they should leave.

 

[TheGM]

IMO, it is worth the GM's time to hunt out like-minded individuals and then the burden rests upon him.

With that said, a good player can seriously disrupt a game, and then it's up to the GM to call them on it and the player to respond positively.

Failure of the GM to call people interrupting the fun is a fault that should send you packing because that tends to explode into an uncontrollable game, but failure of a player to respond should have the GM giving them the boot.

But cater to whomever sits at your table? Some GMs may try, but I don't have that kind of time, patience, or remaining hair. If you're not my style of player, I let you know and help you find a group you'll be happier in.

 

[The Grackle]

Fair? I dunno, but that's just how it is.

It's up to the DM to make sure everyone has fun, b/c the DM can so easily make his players not have fun. If a player likes hack-n'-slash and the DM doesn't give it to him, that player will not have fun.

I think people's play-styles are a real reflection of their personalities, and that can't really be changed. Sure you can gain an appreciation for other play styles, but in the end, people play for whatever reason drew them to the game in the first place- power fantasies, tactical challenges, mock violence, acting, etc.

If you're a DM you're probably a megalomaniacal storyteller who wants to be loved and feared. So if you want people to play your games, you gotta give 'em what they want.

 

[The Shaman]

It's up to the DM to make sure everyone has fun, b/c the DM can so easily make his players not have fun. If a player likes hack-n'-slash and the DM doesn't give it to him, that player will not have fun.

While I respect the idea that players and GMs should work together to make the experience enjoyable for everyone, if that player was in my game, s/he'd be welcome to leave and find someone else to play with.

Considering that the GM must shoulder so much more of the workload already, I think it's the players' responsibility to go with the GM's vision for the game, not the other way around. The goal for the GM is to create an engrossing game-world and campaign that players want to join on its merits.

 

[wedgeski]

First, unlike most other media, the player has direct access to the game's creator, and a direct influence on the quality of the game. This gives RPG'ers leverage which, say, someone watching a film does not. Secondly, if I don't like romcom's, I won't waste my money on 'Bewitched' because there are plenty of other films to choose from that I will probably enjoy. This may not necessarily be the case in RPG's, where finding another group can be difficult, especially if the DM of your current group is good but just not running the kind of game you want to play. In that instance, a player will almost inevitably attempt to fit the game to his play style rather than the other way around.

In the case of a single problem player, however, where the rest of the group is compatible with the DM and the DM is compatible with them, it is absolutely beholden on that person to either fit in with the game, or find another game.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

No, I don't think it's fair. I think it should be an almost equal responsibility. I think it's like a party or any other social occasion -- the host has responsibilities, but they can't carry it alone.

Robin Laws' advice doesn't do it for me. I'd much rather get a dialog started between players and GM, and get them to tell me what they would enjoy, instead of me having to try to guess.

 

[S'mon]

1. It's everyone's responsibility.

2. Anything Quasqueton does will be unfairly regarded as wrong by those who seek to persecute him...