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

[Quasqueton]

Looking at the Player/Style types given in the DMGII (as well as mentioned in Dragon mag and here), I have a question:

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?

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?

It seems that a lot of people expect the DM to cater to them specifically (and each individual Player in the group) rather than find a group that better fits what he is looking for. And reading the DMGII (and other things), it seems that the "official" stance is that all Players' fun and enjoyment in the game is mostly (if not completely) on the DM's shoulders.

Is this fair?

Quasqueton

 

[frankthedm]

It seems that a lot of people expect the DM to cater to them specifically (and each individual Player in the group) rather than find a group that better fits what he is looking for. And reading the DMGII (and other things), it seems that the "official" stance is that all Players' fun and enjoyment in the game is mostly (if not completely) on the DM's shoulders.

Is this fair?

Quasqueton

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.

 

[delericho]

Is this fair?

No, but it is inevitable. The DM controls much of what happens in the game, such that he can adapt the game to the players. It is far harder, perhaps even impossible, for the players to influence the game to such an extent.

Now, there has to be some give and take as regards adaptation. If all the players bar one, plus the DM, are aligned in their tastes, then the one player should do the legwork required to adapt himself to the game (or drop out). However, if the group is fairly disparate then the DM probably has to be the one to build a suitable game, because only he can.

 

[DMO]

Quasqueton, you always start the most interesting discussions!

In our group, many of the members have been playing together for 15+ years, so we've clearly managed to sort this out in a way that everybody's pretty comfortable with. In our case it comes down to everybody's being flexible and working together for a common end. The DMs try to appeal to varying player interests, of course, but the players also own up to the responsibility of creating their own fun individually and as a group.

I can't say how common or uncommon this is, but we're certainly fortunate in any case.

Of course, I don't think it's "fair" if the onus is squarely on the DM's shoulders. But I think it often ends up there because the DM has the most capability within the parameters of the game to take corrective action.

As with many communal activities, it's a case where the more individual participants strive to maximize self-interest, the more the group suffers; and the more everyone works to promote healthy group interaction, the more their own interests and enjoyment are addressed.

Yep, the weather's nice here in Shangri-la!

 

[TiQuinn]

In playing with a group that regularly rotates DMs for 3 different campaigns, I can honestly say that the lion's share of the burden falls on the DM. The players DO contribute to that, so call it an 75/25 split, but the DM sets the mood and theme for the game, engages the players, plays to the various players' strengths, and is the most responsible for a successful and fun game.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I think it should go 60/40, with the Dm taking up 60 percent of the fun factor.
Ive told my players if they are not having fun then they need to work harder to make the game fun. Dont just tell me my games arent any good, try and help to make them better.
Look last story i ran it lasted about 2 months and we are going to continue with the same characters, well in the 2 weeks ive had at thinking up a new story one player expressed he didnt really like it. I asked what he didnt like about the story. He said the story was ok (which is his remark to anything he doesnt understand or wasnt anygood at), then he said it wasnt very original and my sister (his girl friend) agreed, but she quickly added it was still fun.
Ok i dont know about you but how often have you played in a game or watched a movie where there where 6 different villains non of them working together and you didnt know who is truly bad (in this case all of them), and you are not only trying to regain lost memories but figure out what is so special about a magical staff that supposebly belonged to one of the PC's before having his memory erased. Not only that but one of the PCs is trying to figure out who the father of one of the female villains child is (the Pc thought it was his), but then finding out that you are semi the father and you where used to fertilize a demonesses baby transfered into a mortal women. And thats just the tip of it.
Ok maybe youve seen this stuff seperatly but all at once? If you have please tell me where.

Anyway so after me asking where they had seen this stuff before none could produce an answer, not very original indeed. So anyway i felt that if they didnt think it was original i have no hopes of ever impressing them with a story. Its not my fault 2 out of 5 players thought it was ok, its theirs. They have expressed in the past they are in favor of more kick in the door dungeon delving than heavy story, but as ive told them im not changing the way i run my games not for only two people.

My advice to anyone who knows for a fact that the majority of the group favors your Dming style express in no uncertain terms that your not changing the game. This could cause people to stop coming but in my experience fewer players is better than alot of annoying ones.

Ive had to tell my sister and her Boyfriend several times in short they where expendable as far as players go. Once when she was being disruptive. she told me she wouldnt play if i was going to be mean and she was here to have fun. I told her that if her idea of fun was to be annoying and keep me from telling the story then she needed to not play in my games. And recently she said she wouldnt play for what reason i dont remember and she also threatened that her Bf wouldnt play without her and that all my books would be a waste. I pointed accross the room at my brother and two friends and said that we played all last year without them and didnt need them now.

Got a little carried away there , but yeah its only 60 % up to the DM to make the game fun, he does all the work preparing the game, the least the PCs could do is actually roleplay and try and figure out whats going on.

 

[Haradim]

I think both sides have a responsibility to add to the fun. GMs should try to acquire the best group of players that they can for the games they want to run, and players should know what they want from a game and try to find a GM that will enjoy providing it. When it comes time to actually make characters and play, everything is then much easier to smooth out to everyone's satisfaction. Individuals have to bend less, and the chances of dissatisfaction and/or conflict are reduced.

I don't think either the players or the GM should have to stretch overly far, or even sacrifice what they enjoy and came to play for, just to accomodate the other group, especially since some arrangements simply can't be effectively reconciled to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The DM and the players both have responsibility for the enjoyment of everyone in the game. Sometimes this means getting rid of certain players so more fun can be had, but overall, everyone at the table should be contributing to my fun, and I should be contributing to everyone else's fun, whether I'm playing or DM'ing.

 

[Chimera]

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.

As a player or a GM, you need to adjust to the group and to the game. If you can't, or if you're not having fun, then move on. Because you're not doing anyone any favors by staying and being a jerk about things.


I had some former players who didn't think that they needed to make any effort to make the game fun for each other or fun for me. They seemed to think that since I had taken it upon myself to GM a game and invite them, that ALL responsibility for their fun and my own rested on my shoulders.

I don't play with those people anymore. I don't KNOW those people anymore.


OTOH, I make exceptions for sincere attempts to make changes that make more people happy. If most of your group isn't happy, then changes need to be made. Whether this involves getting the GM to change his/her style (ie, less adversarial, more detailed, tougher, more treasure, less treasure, whatever) or getting one player to change his style (shut up/play more cooperative characters/pay more attention/stop insulting X) makes little objective difference.

Sometimes surgery has to be performed to increase everyone's fun.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I will add, however, that the DM has ultimate responsibility for ensuring fun occurs - making sure distractions are minimized, that disruptive players don't get invited or get kicked out whne required, etc.