The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[overgeeked]

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 DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.

The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.

 

[Campbell]

The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.

The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.

I certainly don't put in anywhere close to 99% of the work in the game I run. Maybe 30% if I'm feeling frisky.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

The idea of the GM putting in 99% of the work (or whatever variation in which the majority of the work is put in by the GM) is odd to me. Like I get the sentiment. But I also believe a lot of this work is self imposed, with little thought to actual payout or seeing if it’s necessary for game enjoyment.

Example: I paint minis and build terrain for my games. I also make databases and spreadsheets to link factions and information and move and such together. It’s fun! Good old lonely fun. But none of that is necessary to run a good game with my players. I could claim that this work is 99% or whatever, but it’s somewhat disingenuous to imply that it’s necessary work needed to be done for the game to happen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

On the other hand, many GMs viewing running the game as inherently an act of service, much like hosting and cooking for a dinner.

But, even then I agree with the sentiment that GMing isn’t a “job”. Still, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to talk about reasonable expectations, nor does it not being a job remove the obligation of the GM to do thier best to facilitate a satisfying experience, and make sure the players are comfortable and feel safe, just like a dinner host.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.

The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.

That’s one way to play D&D, sure. Not to my taste, but as they say, some people juggle geese.

The dismissively hyperbolic language like “on a box with a silver platter” is probably counterproductive, though. No one who sees the GM role as having obligations expects a silver platter, literally or metaphorically.

As well, the idea that the GM isn’t a storyteller is very particular to a set of play styles, and not remotely close to widely true enough to declare like an axiom.

I certainly don't put in anywhere close to 99% of the work in the game I run. Maybe 30% if I'm feeling frisky.

Yeah seriously, and at least 1/4 of the work I do put in is wholly voluntary. The players aren’t demanding personalized magic items or a homebrew world.

 

[dragoner]

All the world building I do, is for myself, I mean I could just run a pre-made world ...

 

[Reynard]

On the other hand, many GMs viewing running the game as inherently an act of service, much like hosting and cooking for a dinner.

Hosting and cooking is only half the story, at best, unless you are a hired chef. Guests bring bottles of wine and dessert and good conversation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hosting and cooking is only half the story, at best, unless you are a hired chef. Guests bring bottles of wine and dessert and good conversation.

There was a whole post. I feel like the rest of it addressed this.

 

[Hex08]

I expect my DM to dance a jig for my amusement.....

 

[Reynard]

I expect my DM to dance a jig for my amusement.....

Lol. Not quicker path to a quick death and a disinvitation.