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

[Arnwyn]

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?

Some good questions.

I know that it is too much for me. As a DM, I have no intention nor desire to cater to every single player type. Simply put, there are player types that I'm not interested in catering to as they reduce my fun. And I'm not DMing this game for my health - my personal fun is first and foremost.

Should the Players have responsibility for themselves and their own play style, and should they endeavor to either adjust to the DM's (and maybe the rest of the group's) play style or else bow out of the game and find another group more in line with his preferences?

Thus, based on my feelings above, I do not expect players to adjust to my game. They have a choice - play the game as I have presented it, or leave my game and find a DM that better suits him.

 

[Henry]

The elf sorcerer's player is just happy if he gets to polymorph someone once a session....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....

Could be a casual, but probably more "specialist". (Nobody is ALL one "type", but you find what people are by what things they light up about in a session). If he has no complaints even when asked, and keeps showing up session after session, then you're doing EXACTLY the right thing for him.

 

[loki44]

Forget the split.
Every person at the table has a responsibility to themselves and each other for the fun they have or do not have.

I tend to agree with this assertion. I'm all about personal responsibility. If you're not having fun, and there are probably as many definitions of "fun" as there are people on this website, what the heck are you doing? Now, I would have to say that "fun" for the DM probably involves having players around the table that enjoy being there, so it would probably behoove him/her to remain flexible to a certain degree. I think it also makes a difference if you're playing with family or friends, or with total strangers. It's a heckuva lot easier to tell the latter to just bug off than the former. I haven't read the entire DMG II so I can't formulate an opinion on that particular section of the book and whether or not it is "official". I do find it odd that a game company would have an "official" stance on who's responsibility it is to create "fun" for the other particpants and provide and exact ratio to define it.

 

[Reynard]

It is not fair, but it is Wotc's plan to sell PHBs. The have pulled the teeth magic used to have and whored out the D&D game to sell PHBs.

No one is going to feed him? But he looks so cute and hungry...


Anyway -- on topic: Differences in play style and expectations have recently pretty much cut me out of DMing for my current group. i love these guys, and will still play with tem (even if the game sucks -- I like hanging out with them *that* much) but in order to get my GMing fix, I am going to have to find another group. Which sucks, because here (Connecticut, USA) at least, it seems that groups are either super insular or non-existent. Maybe I will have to finally make use of that RPGA DM card thingy I got a while back...

 

[RobinDLaws]

Speaking of Mr. Laws, it seemed to me that he had a heavy influence on that part of the DMG

You are correct, sir.

 

[RobinDLaws]

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.

So would we all. A GM who has a group willing and able to accurately articulate their needs is a lucky GM. These GMs don't need much advice on identifying player styles -- though a checklist of common styles might help the players to identify their own needs. Surprisingly often, though, you'll find that players are unwilling or unable to simply tell you what they want. They may be unconscious of their desires or unwilling to seem critical of you. In many cases a wide chasm exists between the player's stated tastes and his actual behavior during play.

 

[Psion]

Cool. It seems another esteemed designer has joined our midst.

So would we all. A GM who has a group willing and able to accurately articulate their needs is a lucky GM. These GMs don't need much advice on identifying player styles -- though a checklist of common styles might help the players to identify their own needs. Surprisingly often, though, you'll find that players are unwilling or unable to simply tell you what they want. They may be unconscious of their desires or unwilling to seem critical of you. In many cases a wide chasm exists between the player's stated tastes and his actual behavior during play.

Indeed. I think this is in no small part due to the fact that some segments of the gaming populace have made it "taboo" to play certain ways and have made many players ashamed of the way they really enjoy playing. Somewhat understandable in cases where one's playstyle is disruptive to everyone else, but I have seen many cases when supposedly enlightened methods of roleplaying lead to as much of a problem as supposedly more low-brow methods of play.

 

[The Grackle]

I know that it is too much for me. As a DM, I have no intention nor desire to cater to every single player type. Simply put, there are player types that I'm not interested in catering to as they reduce my fun. And I'm not DMing this game for my health - my personal fun is first and foremost.

Really? I see trying to cater my players various tastes as part of the fun and challenge of being a GM. I think it sharpens the skills. I wish I had a group of even more varied people as none of my players are very tactically minded.

 

[Arnwyn]

Really?

Yes, really.

I see trying to cater my players various tastes as part of the fun and challenge of being a GM.

Sure, and so do I... as long as they match my tastes (which, thankfully, are reasonably wide and varied). That, however, doesn't change my original statement that there are some player types and tastes that I care little for, and thus will ignore.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Sadly, in most groups, the DM has to try and cater to each of his/her players. However, I feel that a truly successful gaming group will listen to each other's needs and desires to get the most out of the campaign. That means being flexible on playing styles. It's a partnership. The players should try and help make the Dm's job easier by being flexible that way the DM doesn't get burned out too quickly. The same goes for the DM, he should try and listen to what kind of game the players want and fold at least some of those ideas into the campaign. Too bad, that doesn't usually happen. I'm pretty lucky in that regard as my group and I all have similar play styles.

Kane