The DM's burden

[Zappo]

This thread was inspired by reapersaurus here.

The way RPGs are structured, the DM bears the vast majority of the responsibility for a good game. Imagine a game where the DM is constantly railroading, or lacks good plot ideas, or can't act the NPCs, or uses metagame info, or plainly sucks (or is just having a bad day). If the players are good, the game might come out a bit better than a total disaster, but it will still be a bad game overall.

The DM has to be good, or the game won't work, and the players can't really do much to help him.

Can the burden of creating a good game be distributed more equally? Can the players be given more power to improve the game without also having more power to ruin it?

It would take a reworking of a few key concepts of RPing, but maybe, just maybe, it can be done.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations,

It all depends on the players.

I offer xp for the players helping to design parts of a world- city, religion, guild, etc.

Only one of my players ever takes that up, and when he dm's- I am the only one that takes the offer.

The other two casual players just show up to play.

Heck, I can't get one of them to make a character before the session sometimes.

FD

 

[Zappo]

Bump.

 

[GuardianLurker]

TCan the burden of creating a good game be distributed more equally? Can the players be given more power to improve the game without also having more power to ruin it?

Short answer: Nope.
Long answer: The moment you (as GM) devolve any of the *creative* aspects to your players they become in control of those aspects, almost co-GMs. If you retain approval authority, work work load actually increases, as you have to consider all of the implications and side effects of introducing that element, and sooner or later (despite the effort the player put into his addition), you'll have to say "Nope. Neat idea. But it won't work."

In any case, devolving aspects of GMing to your player *can* work (to enhance the play) - it's just that you can't do it without risk (of "ruining"/dramatically changing the campaign world).

 

[Crothian]

I allow PCs to work on things that effect their characters. THe Cleric might help define his church and their duties. Players write up NPCs like family and contacts. Sure reading it all might take a while, but not near as long as sitting down and creating it all from scratch.

In their Histories I like characters to have a few adventure or story ideas. That way if there is a time I'm low on ideas I can borrow from the characters histories and have a pre made idea that affects at least one character.

 

[Desdichado]

Do you want to? Most DMs are up to the task, I think. That's why they DM.

At least in my experience.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

***Copied From Previous Thread***

In past games I've been in we have all collectively tried to help the DM determine a new course of action between adventures. I still don't think that is what you are looking for. The thought of "Action Dice" from Spycraft comes to mind, wherein PCs use their action dice to possibly thwart the DMs NPCs, but again I think this is off mark.

You could possibly have a type of "Round Robin" session and let each person that wants to take a particular portion of an adventure. It would be difficult for everyone to not know what is going on, but if those involved have a very generic overview of the adventure beforehand they can each be assigned part of it. This way no single DM has to worry about the entire adventure, and if he/she sucks or whatever, the pain of the experience is shortlived...

Example: Everyone knows the generic plot of the story, the main NPCs or whatever.

One person does all the intro DMing "You hear about Mr. Evil and his plot and decide what must be done"

Then another fills in the next part "You travel through the Black Swamp to Mr. Evil's hideout"

Etcetra and so on.... of course with much more detail and RPing involved...

I think it could work on some level.... Thoughts?

 

[jhanzur]

A thought just came to mind. I might have one player read certain in-character flavor text from an NPC from time to time. This might help to get the other players to pay more attention, and it puts a new "voice" to the NPC.

 

[Siridar]

Help on the creative end is one option I've given to my players, however, they rarely take it upon themselves to actually come up with anything.

I've designing a whole world that they can fit into. There are lots of basic ideas that I have come up with (or borrowed from elsewhere) and I'd gladly take any suggestions from my players. But they don't offer any. Occasionally I may be able to get a tidbit out of one of my players background, but just for them to come up with background material for their character took a bit of prodding. In general I'm fairly loose with allowing my PC's freedom to do what they what with their character.

I think they may simply be too intimidated to help build the world, because they may feel that it's my world as opposed to our world.

I've DMed and played RPG's for 13 years. I've DMed our current campaign since 3E came out with only a handfull of games I've been a player under another DM. This past weekend I came to the realization that I was burnt out from DMing and I wanted to play. I brought it up each time we played for the past 3 weeks. I got "But I can't DM. I suck. Your good at it. You DM." I asked 5 players to DM and the answers were all pretty much the same. Well, after the fact, I got responses from 3 of the 5 saying that they were willing to give it a shot. I just want to play.

Sorry 'bout the rant. Just had to get that off my chest. It's annoying to put a lot of work into a game and get little creative input from the players when asked.

Anyway, I believe that players can have valuable input without ruining the game. One example would be if their character isn't being used, that player could run an NPC. Another is creating the background and practices of their religion. I'm not saying the players should be given carte blanche. Everything should be subject to DM approval. And the DM can always work up some nifty little secret to go along with it. So long as the player isn't aware of everything and whatever secrets can be preserved, then I believe the player can take the burden off the DM.

Look, see, my little rant actually did apply to this, sorta.

 

[sigfried]

I disagree

True: With a realy rotten GM there is nothing you can do as a player to save the game, except help the GM with advice and try to entertain yourself.

But if the DM is at least tolerable, then good players add a lot to the game. Their characters are the stars of the story. Ask yourself, "What movie would be good with all the main characters played by incopetent and boring actors and actreses?" You can have all the cool sets, props, and such in the world but without the main characters you've got nothing.

Good players help creat storie ideas with their actions, and they can support the GM's story by acting in such a way to make it more dramatic. Whenever I'm playing I always try to find ways to entertain the other players by directly interacting with their characters, and I try to move the GM's story forward in any way that makes snese for my character.

As a DM I love players who create situations with their characters, and who help me out by playing allong when needed.