The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Umbran]

That is one way to view the job,

Yeah, there's a reasonably large stack of valid takes on the role.

But I don't think of myself as performing a service for my regular groups. We are all playing together and it so happens I much prefer to be the GM, they in a way they are doing me a service by letting me take on that role.

I'm in a different position. In terms of engaging in the activity itself, I prefer playing to running the game. However, nobody else wants to run the game, and even if they did, I'm rather better at it than the rest of the group.

Luckily, I'm a fairly service-oriented person. I like helping. So, I get a goodly chunk of enjoyment out of their enjoyment.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Totally agree. Certainly, I'm heavily invested in the players having fun, but for a game to truly be great, the whole table needs to put that same good energy into the game. When you have a player at the table that doesn't care about everyone else's fun, that's going to hold the game back from greatness. And, depending on how much they don't care, could completely wreck a session.

Do I think the GM is responsible for my fun when we play? Yes, but it's a shared responsibility. It's also mine and every player at the table's responsibility. So I'm on board with the idea that the game is more of a dinner party with the GM hosting and not a restaurant where I'm presented with an experience that I receive. And that's true whether I'm playing with friends, random weirdos, or a professional GM.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Something to think about is how much control the players and DM have in making the game fun.

As a player, I can help make the game fun by designing a character who fits in with group dynamics, interacts proactively with the campaign world, and doesn't hog the spotlight. I can take an active role in talking with NPCs, exploring dungeons and the setting, and supporting other characters. But if I really like to solve puzzles, fight undead, or command followers... well, my ability to bring those elements into the game is limited.

On the other hand, as a DM it's extremely easy to put what I find fun into the game! If I like traps... Poof! There's a trap! If I let political drama... Abracadabra! Political drama!

I think it should be a player's responsibility to communicate with the DM about what they find fun... And a DM's responsibility to listen and do their best to provide opportunities for players to have fun.

 

[JThursby]

If I'm running a game, I assume most of the responsibility, but there's a couple of things I expect from players and quickly get peeved if they don't meet their obligations on:

-Players should know what their own character is, what it can do, and generally be ready to answer questions I or other players may have. Not knowing their basic features, spells, or even fundamental things like how many actions are in a turn will quickly draw my ire if it's an experienced player that should know better.
-Players should be paying attention and not be multitasking while we play. I understand checking email or messages, but playing a game gets an instant request to refocus their attention. Not complying with this request after being asked several times is grounds for ejection, I have no patience for someone that won't respect the time and effort the rest of us put into the game by giving no effort on their part.
-Players connecting online should have decent microphone etiquette. Intrusive background noise, talking over other players, talking to IRL people interchangeably without muting, or persistently having garbled or incomprehensible audio is extremely obnoxious and wastes everybody's time.
-Players should expect rulings based on the rules we agreed on beforehand; excessive bargaining or whinging for special treatment will not be appeased.
-General sportsmanlike conduct. Antagonism, sabotage, and other types of conflict should be within the confines of the narrative and not mean spirited. This also covers treating everyone at the game table with due respect. Being a jerk for no reason over and over again is an ejectionable offense.

Thankfully very few players I've had need correction of any kind. You'd think that you'd need these rules more in a professional GM setting but no, it turns out players that are spending their money to be there take their investment a bit more seriously on average. I have never had to actually eject anybody from the table, but these policies are ones I have laid out so everyone knows the score.

 

[Lanefan]

I wanted to spin this out of the "power creep" thread because I think it is worth its own discussion.

I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.

Now, this might not be true with paid GMing -- which is why after having done it a little, I am not a fan. Even at a convention, I am still a facilitator of fun, rather than a vendor of it, if that makes sense.

Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?

The GM is there to entertain us.

Each one of us is there to entertain - among other people - the GM.

I can't imagine how much less fun GMing would be were I getting paid to do it and thus have greater expectations legitimately placed on me.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I'm DMing right now and I guess I do rather think it's my job to give the players something distinctly entertaining. It's not my job to keep them passively entertained, certainly, as that cannot work in a collaborative game like D&D, but giving them something that draws them in and makes them want more? I figure I owe them that.

 

[bloodtide]

The DM is very much there to entertain the players. The DM is a special elite role, while the players just stumble in and want to "play".

The vast majority of players I have ever meet, can't even be bothered to bring a character sheet or dice to a game. And that is on top of the problem where they can't be bothered to even know the game rules.

Even most of the players that show up with a character and dice, most just sit there and wait to react to something the DM does. Even if they are asked anything they will answer with a "Idonno", and asking them to do something is just talking to a wall.

And while the DM is making the game for all, most players are there to take from others and run a selfish solo game for themselves. Few players will 'play in a group' or anything like that on their own. If the DM asks them too, they might sort of make a tiny effort, or most likely ignore the DM.

The players that even come close to 1% as engaged in the game as the DM are Rare to the extreme.

 

[Composer99]

I think the table as a whole is responsible for the engagement, enjoyment, and satisfaction of each player (of whom the GM is one) present.

That said, the GM often has a larger share of responsibility toward that end by virtue of their expanded role in establishing the shared fiction.

(Parenthetically, I think entertainment and fun are part of it, absolutely. At the same time, it seems to me there are folks who approach TTRPGs the way others might approach model train collecting, gardening, or scrapbooking, as an enjoyable hobby that isn't necessarily fun in the way we usually think of when we play games.)

 

[aramis erak]

Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?

The GM is, by convention...

• Obligated to provide suitable content for the players to engage with
• obligated to be fair with the players
• supposed to make the players decisions meaningful in the context
• supposed to keep a story emerging

The GM is not

• obligated to be an entertainer by convention; they are more likely to find players if they are, but I've had fun with a GM who was, to be honest, subpar as a reader of text, and not great about RP itself... but he kept the game going, and story emerged,.
• obligated to play Game X just because the players want Game X. Same for Adventure X or campaign X.
• obliged to continue a campaign they are not enjoying.

Ideally a GM is...

• Entertaining
• Enjoyable to play under (which isn't the same as Entertaining.)
• Fair
• Rules Knowledgeable
• Mentally Flexible
• having fun.

One of the most entertaining GM's I've seen wasn't fun to play under. He did the voices. He did the Minis. He was joy to listen to... but he also was a control freak from hell, and none of the PC's decisions mattered.

I''d rather play under the severely limited skillset GM mentioned above, because he was fair, and let the story emerge rather than forcing it upon us. Our characters mattered (And I got my AL PC back out of Ravenloft.)

 

[aramis erak]

I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.

Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining". You're not doing it to get the kind of adventure that you want to see. It should definitely be enjoyable and rewarding, otherwise there'd be little point in doing it. But there are many kinds of work that are very enjoyable to certain kinds of people, even though they are work and not play, and you couldn't call them fun. And plenty of people do them for free, investing their own time and effort.

I think that's a much more productive approach to being a great GM than trying to make the game "fun" for yourself.

If the GM isn't enjoying the game, it very often shows up very quickly in play and can ruin the experience far worse than a barely competent GM who is having fun while the players are too.

When a campaign ceases being fun for me, I tell the players, and tell them what it is that's ruining my fun. In a couple cases, that's been a harsh as 1st year strings student ensembles at rehearsal of a wake up call.

(and I've done a lot of time around 1st year strings students... It can be seriously cringe-worthy, especially second semester)