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

[Belen]

Fair? Nothing in life is fair or free. I think it takes a particular type of person to be a GM. That person must take enjoyment from providing it to others. I love to GM. I also like to make my players happy and hope that they have a good time.

I am a firm believer in that a group needs to find a way to connect with one another on a personal level. If half the group wants a tabletop wargame with RP elements, and the other half want good roleplay with some fighting, then you cannot make any of the players happy. I learned this the hard way.

I think that each group has their own alignment. A group that is NG will not mesh with a person who is CN etc. So you have to build a group that work effectively together.

Also, as a GM, I do have a certain style. It is important to look for people who will have fun with the style of play. Will I modify my style to fit a player type? Depends on the player. D&D is a cooperative game. There is some amount of give an take. So, if everyone is willing to compromise, then great, but it does take compromise.

Stream of thought concluded.

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't see how fair even enters into it. Or how the responsibility can be split.

If you want to have fun, have fun. That's YOUR responsibility. Having fun isn't dependent on a particular adventure or a particular style. Just, you know, have fun.

I mean, if the DM's a bozo and the other players suck, or you just don't like the host's cat, fine, find another group. But 100% of EVERYONE'S responsibility for having fun is THEIR OWN.

Nobody can make you have fun. Nobody can make you not have fun. Whether or not YOU have fun is up to you. It's a DECISION, not a RESULT. I can't stand this attitude of "I can't have fun unless I have X and Y and Z." Yes you can. Of course you can. You just have to DECIDE to have fun. If you would rather NOT have fun unless you have X and Y and Z, that's fine, you can decide to do that, but it's up to you.

Frickin culture of victimization ratzlefrickenfrackenfruggen...

 

[Henry]

Is it too much to expect a DM to work out ways to cater to all the different Player types in his game? Should a DM spend his effort on trying to get together a group of like-style Players instead of trying to work his game to make everyone happy?

Maybe my group's atypical, but I am given to understand that MOST gaming groups are friends gathering together to play; this makes the second option moot, because friendships are more important than running a "perfect" game.

It's like a host at a party: It's BOTH the host and the guest's responsibility to have a smooth gathering. A boor will kill a party just like a problem player will kill a (PC) Party. The DM I think DOES have a responsibility to cater the adventure to hit the "needs" of his group; the players, correspondingly, have a responsbility to share and not complain when the session is taking a turn that meets another player's needs. As long as everyone gets a chance to shine, the session will probably be a success.

 

[sniffles]

I don't know about fairness - what would be fair? The GM does have a lot of responsibility for how the game progresses. As others have said, it's the nature of the beast. Changing that would change the nature of the roleplaying experience.

It is the player's responsibility to bring some of the fun to the table - but not at the expense of the other players. Roleplaying is a cooperative activity. It's also a majority rule activity. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Orius]

Is it too much to expect a DM to work out ways to cater to all the different Player types in his game? Should a DM spend his effort on trying to get together a group of like-style Players instead of trying to work his game to make everyone happy?

Myself, I think it would be better for a DM to get together a generally like-minded group of people. Not just to make it easier for his own DMing, but to cut down on conflicts among the players. Differences in preference for gaming styles doesn't just affect the DM-player relationship, it also affects the players themselves.

Now it's likely that a group won't have a conmpletely perfect match, but as long as the players have generally compatible gaming tastes, it can probably work out over the long run. Most player conflicts come from people who have vastly differing tastes that really aren't all that reconcilable.

I think that players really need to communicate with each other before a campaign begins too, though. There's been plenty of cases where a player made a background or decided on motivations for his character that did not work well at all with the rest of the group. I think it's better for a group to make characters that actually have a reason for being together rather than the tired old "You all meet up in a tavern".

I also think that it might be good to start out a new group of players who don't don't know each other that well with a more basic style of game, that is the old fashioned dungeon crawl. It doesn't really matter how good each of the players might be at role-playing, it's more of a matter of getting them used to playing the game with each other before going into a lot of heavy in depth role-playing. Otherwise, you get into situation like a player deciding his PC doesn't like another PC, and the player of the second PC taking it personally.

 

[ForceUser]

Myself, I think it would be better for a DM to get together a generally like-minded group of people. Not just to make it easier for his own DMing, but to cut down on conflicts among the players. Differences in preference for gaming styles doesn't just affect the DM-player relationship, it also affects the players themselves.

I agree here, and generally strive to do that. However, does anyone really find it surprising that the official position is "play nice with others, and adapt to all playstyles"? How could WotC's position be any different? They can't advocate that you boot someone just because your playstyles differ, nor should they. I think it's healthy advice that the DMG2 gives, and even if one doesn't agree to the extent with which the book suggests finding a common ground, you have to admit that there's merit in teaching DMs to find an ecumenical perspective.

I have read the DMG2, and I can honestly say that it has made me a better DM. Not necessarily because of any specific advice, but because of the spirit of cooperation and flexibility that it suggests. Believe it or not, a DM can adjust to his players' playstyles while running the kind of campagn he wants. When I stopped trying to force square pegs (players) into round holes (my vision of how I wanted my players to act), I found that everyone, myself included, had a lot more fun at the table. What could be more important than that?

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

the player's role...

... is to give me hooks in their character background that I can hang a story on. If they do that then they'll get more spotlight time. If they don't then the story becomes about what the world is.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It really doesn't happen for me that way.

I generally lay down the campaign I'll be GMing for the players and mention some unacceptable player behavoirs off the bat and if the players don't like it, no game.

Am I unwilling to bend on that stance? Not at all. If player A is adding more to my game than player B, I'll be using the hooks and plots that player A is giving me. I may prod the other player a few times and throw a few hooks out there for 'em, but some might be surprised how many people are HAPPY just being a body at the game with a competent character whose gaming abilities are just as important as any relationship she might have with NPC's, the world, or their own background.

 

[Henry]

...I may prod the other player a few times and throw a few hooks out there for 'em, but some might be surprised how many people are HAPPY just being a body at the game with a competent character whose gaming abilities are just as important as any relationship she might have with NPC's, the world, or their own background.

This is what Robin Laws calls the "casual gamer." (Can't recall DMG2's term for it.) To a small extent, I am that gamer type. The gathering itself, being in the background, contributing but not taking a major role, is enjoyable to me. I have no problem taking a major role if no one else leads, but it's not where I'm most comfortable.

 

[Prince Atom]

Speaking of Mr. Laws, it seemed to me that he had a heavy influence on that part of the DMG -- but perhaps they all just had the same sources.

I've got one character now whose parents were in a kind of Romeo-Juliet romance and died tragically after she was born; another whose pursuit of her goals has brought her all the way across the Flanaess from Tenh to Geoff; a third who's on the hunt for his planewalker parents; and a fourth who's an elf sorcerer.

So, three out of four ain't bad. The elf sorcerer's player is just happy if he gets to polymorph someone once a session. BTW, he's got a whole list of creatures to polymorph people into that he made up from looking at the SRD; that's fine with me, it shows an interest in the game, but it does lead to discussions over whether the werebear or the rakshasa is the best choice for this fight....

I'm just trying to fit in stuff for the characters with my overarching plotline (Against the Giants, 25th Anniversary book).