The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[dragoner]

Yes, as an Italian friend told me: "If it can't be fun, then it can't be done." Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Jeezus, do you need a hug?

 

[MNblockhead]

Regarding paid DMing, sure, the DM has more responsibility to entertain. But that doesn't obviate the responsibilities as a player. You still have other participants to think about. And for that matter, I think we all have responsibility to anyone providing us with a service to make their job more enjoyable. Positive engagement and empathy just make life better.

 

[Hex08]

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?

As someone who primarily DMs I definitely feel that one of my primary duties is being responsible for running an entertaining game, and consequently, entertaining my players. However, it does run both ways and my players are also responsible for being engaged and making the game fun for me and the other players. The burden though. does fall on me. I set the tone, develop the story and determine how difficult the game is (and my responsibilities don't stop there). Most of my group has gamed with me for decades but there is also a new player in the group and I need to accept and cater to the idiosyncrasies of my long term players and learn the idiosyncrasies of my new player so that I can craft a game that allows them to feel comfortable, engaged and entertained.

As I said earlier, this does run both ways. One of my best friends of 38 years also has gamed with me for most of that time. Of all of my regular players he was the one I found most difficult. Like most of my players, he didn't own the rules and only knew them through play. Unlike my other players, however, he was a rules lawyer (who didn't really know the rules) but I delt with it for years because he was a good player otherwise. A few years ago he had one bad thing after another happen in his life and because of those frustrations he became more and more confrontational in his rules lawyering. I did my best to be tolerant because of his situation but he got so bad that I started cancelling gaming sessions because I didn't want to deal with him. Eventually I booted him from the group because he was sucking the joy out of playing for me. He wasn't holding up his end of the bargain.

It runs both ways but as DM, I have more control and power so it's my job to wield that power for good.

 

[MNblockhead]

Not much new to say on the topic. But first and foremost I feel that the game must be fun for me. No matter how much the other players are enjoying a campaign, if I'm not, I feel obligated to end it. I only have time to run one campaign. I take 8 hours--a full work day--per month for my monthly sessions, not including the prep time. That is time that isn't spent with family or on work. Or the many other things I could spend my personal time. I'm also of an age where I have more years behind me than ahead of me.

Of course, perhaps the most important part of my enjoyment is when the whole group of players is enjoying it. I just don't want to subsume my enjoyment to that of the other players out of some sense of duty. I'm not being paid and nobody's life is on the line.

Understanding this helps me not drag on a bad campaign too long and to take the group's temperature more often. A bit of selfishness and self-awareness can make things better for everyone.

 

[Emirikol]

Bratty players exist for certain who dont realize they need to bring their A-game.

I like that phrase Yoda says from Empire':
LUKE What's in the cave?
YODA Only what you bring with you.

 

[pemerton]

To me, a DM is the architect. An architect's job is to design a space that serves the people who will use it. An architect who designs a playground does want to entertain the kids who will use it.

<snip>

I see my role as a DM as being a playground architect. I am designing structures through which my players create fun.

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.

This is why I prefer RPGing where the GM is not the one in charge of deciding what the game will be about, what the setting contains, and the like!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

I would say "The DM is responsible for fun" and "The DM is responsible for entertainment" are two entirely different things.

The DM often is responsible for whether a game is fun, to a large degree, in terms of how they make rulings, how they adjudicate the game, how they ensure every player has a chance to be in the spotlight, how they run encounters to make them engaging rather than punishing/tedious, and so on.

I don't think there's really any way around that except for giving the DM far less power, as a few games do. But even in stuff like PtbA which reduces the role of the DM somewhat, the DM is pivotal in determining whether things are likely to be fun. The DM has the power to push things in either direction.

But "responsible for entertainment" is different. That's more like treating the DM as the storyteller, and everyone else listens and interacts when appropriate, but essentially puts the entire burden of telling the tale on the DM. That the DM has to come up with everything - i.e. instead of the PCs deciding how to rescue the prince, the DM has to provide the PCs with an approach or multiple approaches, and to essentially present them to the players. I've seen groups who operate like this, but I don't think it's a great approach myself.

 

[soviet]

I don't think there is one particular way to GM, I think different games require different approaches. When I GM something on the storygame/narr side of the spectrum I am trying very hard to provide springboards for the players and to run with their crazy shenanigans wherever it takes us. When I GM something more traditional like MERP I am instead trying to present a living gameworld that has a reality of its own and does not really adapt to the desires of the players or their characters - or at least, it is up to them to make it.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The group exists to entertain me, the GM. If I do not find them entertaining, I discard them and bring in new ones.

The chef analogy is somewhat apt: I cook what I enjoy cooking, and I am willing to tweak the cooking in certain ways upon request, but the fact is that the menu is steak, potatoes, corn, and bread, and if you don't like that, then you don't eat.

Therefore the key to a good gaming group is finding people who enjoy those foods.