Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[LostSoul]

Story-Games weighs in

There are a couple of threads on Story Games now that I think are relevant to some of the ideas expressed in this thread (and those by the Primer):

Story Games - Let's talk about "fictional positioning" This thread mentions 4E a few times.

Story Games - What is Parlour Narration ? This one is more focused on a comment made by Ron Edward while judging games for "The Ronnies". I don't think it really speaks to D&D, but some of the ideas are probably worth a read.

 

[Ariosto]

THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!

I believe, as the author of this document does, that modern roleplaying lends itslef to being "stale" and "boring" more often than old school gaming.

Maybe it is less interesting to some people because what once could matter is now seen as too dangerous unless it is reduced to "just fluff" that does not matter at all. There are only so many powers, feats and skills, and they are in sum rather more of a muchness -- some just numbers, others carefully itemized standard effects -- than the great variety of things that people in a world can do.

This, for me, goes right back to the initial appeal of D & D. The combinations of positions and moves in a conventional wargame might be inexhaustibly vast, but the components were of a repetitive sameness. Going from the operational to the tactical brought more distinctions into play, but everything was still quite stereotyped.

I daresay this is even part of the appeal of 4e for some folks, who see in old D & D a combat system in which small unit tactics exhaust the possibilities (often phrased along the lines of there being no individual move besides "I attack").

That is not really so in my experience, but it is fair to say that Arneson and Gygax expressed a desire generally to get to the results of a fight more quickly and get on with exploring the consequences for the adventure. Adding all the "bells and whistles" to exploration of the process was the exception rather than the rule.

Other processes, though, tend to get more attention in the old style. While new style players are still working out the details of combat moves, old style players are detailing their moves in investigations that the new style reduces to rolls about like (or even more rudimentary than) common old style combats.

 

[Thasmodious]

Good post, JamesonCourage; sorry I cannot XP it right now.

The Shaman, I agree with you; if I am not having fun in the long run, someone else has to run the game. End of story. Obviously we don't stop GMing just because of momentary lapses in the fun! But, equally obviously, no one wants to GM a game that they don't enjoy.

Since this tangent arose from my post, I feel like you continue to paint my statement with the wrong brush, though I've elaborated on what I meant.

At no point have I, nor Hussar or anyone else who has picked up on that, said that a GM must sacrifice and GM a game that they don't enjoy. There is a large of play between "the way I would do it if all my players were just like me" and capitulating to the point where you running the worst game you can imagine having to run.

I like games where the setting is very alive, the PCs become a part of the world, they have friends, acquaintances, and enemies (mundane and otherwise) among the cast of NPCs. The threads of player driven plot are deep and complex, politics plays a role, and so on. The kind of game where the players need to keep extensive notes, and the DMs prep time is spent up on the machinations of behind the scene villains. This was the type of game I used to run and they ran well, with lots of player involvement. Eventually a couple of the players had to drop out and a couple other players came in and the group dynamic changed, both at the table and in real life. We were getting older, family and work priorities trump gaming and we had less time to devote to our hobby. I learned the new players and learned what they like and what they don't and began to find my fun with other playstyles that struck a balance among all our competing needs. A complex game just didn't fit the situation anymore. But I found the fun in going even further with the idea of PC driven narrative, planning shorter campaigns that wouldn't take years to see through, relaxed the attitude at the table so everyone was having more fun, even if we got in less actual gaming. The social aspect became as important. This is what I mean by sacrifice. Not sacrificing the total sum of your fun to the players, but adjusting from your ideal to find the fun in a game that suits the needs of everyone at the table. It's their game, too.

 

[Water Bob]

This quote, from pg. 7 of the 1E AD&D DMG, seems most appropriate for many of these posts...

"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesireable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands (out of the DM's hands) and mold it to his or her own ends."

-E. Gary Gygax

The man knew what he was talking about.

 

[Hussar]

And, just because I seem to be getting painted with the same mis-representation that Thasmodius etc is getting painted with - I never said that the DM should have less fun than anyone else. I specifically stated that anyone, regardless of what side of the screen they sit on, who puts their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table is a bad player.

Is this really problematic?

The point I was first responding to stated that a DM categorically should never accomodate his players if that accommodation would lessen his enjoyment of the game. Sorry, I really don't buy that. That way leads to rail road city because as soon as a player attempts to do anything the DM doesn't particularly care for, the DM is now entitled to shoot down the player's action, for the sole reason that the DM thinks its less fun.

Again, no thank you.

 

[Fifth Element]

The man knew what he was talking about.

Of course, this is not restricted to players. The DM molding the game to his or her own ends without considering the players is just as bad as the players doing it to the DM. It's also far easier for the DM to do, since he has so much authority over the game world by default.

 

[Fifth Element]

The point I was first responding to stated that a DM categorically should never accomodate his players if that accommodation would lessen his enjoyment of the game.

This is how I interpret it when a DM says "my fun first". He considers his fun before the players', and if it's something that might reduce his fun a bit it's vetoed, regardless of what the group as a whole might prefer.

 

[Ariosto]

It's a pretty thorny problem when different people are after opposing kinds of "fun".

Should a fight take 10 to 20 minutes, or about four times as long? Should determining how to open a secret passage require (absent demonstration) actual experiment, or should it be up to a toss of dice?

Should either activity even be liable to failure? Some people play for a real challenge, like taking on a board game or card game, a computer game or a sport. Others play to enjoy a story in which they get to "do awesome things" (whatever that means to them personally) without any real liability to disappointment.

Some compromises are pretty easy, others not so much.

 

[Hussar]

It's a pretty thorny problem when different people are after opposing kinds of "fun".

Should a fight take 10 to 20 minutes, or about four times as long? Should determining how to open a secret passage require (absent demonstration) actual experiment, or should it be up to a toss of dice?

Should either activity even be liable to failure? Some people play for a real challenge, like taking on a board game or card game, a computer game or a sport. Others play to enjoy a story in which they get to "do awesome things" (whatever that means to them personally) without any real liability to disappointment.

Some compromises are pretty easy, others not so much.

Yes, but now you're going a bit further. These are decisions that have to be addressed when deciding what system to use. If you cannot find a common ground between everyone at the table on these elements, it's going to very difficult to run any game for this group - the play style differences are just too large.

And, no one is claiming that a DM should run a game he hates. That would be stupid. Just as stupid as claiming that players should play in games that they hate. No one wins there.

But, closer to the issue at hand is, "Should the DM over rule the mechanics when no one else at the table has an issue with the mechanics?" If half the group wants really crunchy combat that takes an hour to resolve and the other half wants less crunchy combat that resolves in ten minutes, someone's going to have to compromise here, or, you need to find new players.

But, once you've decided one way or the other (by choosing a system that fits (mostly) with what the group wants, is it fair that the DM then imposes his view of how things should work on the entire group?

---------------

Funnily enough, if you reverse the point about the DM should never sacrifice any of his fun for the table and always put his fun first, and apply it to a player, you get a description of the worst, table disrupting, prima donna player you can get.

I mean, would you really want to play with a player who puts his own fun ahead of everyone else's at the table? When we talk about bad players, isn't this pretty much the root of the problem?

But, if I put that same player behind the DM screen, it's suddenly okay that he puts his fun ahead of everyone else's at the table? Really?

 

[TheUltramark]

You are never going to please everyone all of the time.
Even in my game where the bulk of us have known each other all of our lives disagreements and style clashes occur. If I am the dm and a player is having a bad night because of me, it drastically affects my "fun level". Not because of some sort of pride of "dm-ship" but because he is my firend. If I am a player and the dm and another player "get at it" it drags me down too, again, these are my friends. At the same time I have been the butt of a joke or two in my time, and while its never fun, when the rest of the table is laughing hysterically, it's hard not to shrug it off and laugh along.

I've played in some on-line games with bad dm's, bad for any number of reasons, but it seemed the game never lasted