"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THAT THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NET, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!" - E. Gary Gygax
-when in doubt, I usually go with that.
I go with it when not in doubt. Borrowing your work typing it I highlight some thing some people may not be seeing, amy have forgotten, or may not understand that many/some of us may adhere to for the sake of the game. Since many DMs do it for the game first, not the people. (serious vs social or whatever you call it)
The DM is told, and rightfully so to be the master of the game, the one running it, the one in charge, because there is their main role. To make the game work. Like many governments are given power to make decisions for a vastly large number of people, so is the DM tasked to make decisions that would keep its games people in the proper state of affairs. IE: Having a fun game to play.
The next bolded part from the DMG continues that. The DM should be offering the world to the players and making sure it works. Some it seems want to hand some of the game mastering to the players in the middle of play, while other DMs just don't work like that, as the DM choose to in his arbitration. Other DMs prefer to hand part of the creation to players before the game has begun such as what parts will or won't come into play, and then those DMs handle full arbitration after the game has started.
Which brings to a confusing last part:
- game as a whole
- the game you have designed to run as a campaign
- your players
#1 encompasses the other two, but ensures that both get taken care of. But it also prevents ANY player from becoming the "problem player" for any reason on purpose or accidental so that the game for all works. The prime job of the DM is to make the game work for all, or when it arises, for the majority as you can't always please everyone.
You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
Trekkie version:
*
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
#2 The game must function, so it comes second. If the game doesn't function then there is nothing for the players to play. The DM can only make things function that they can make work. Alignment languages don't work, the do not use them. Even if a player wants them so badly because they sound cool, or all players want them; the DM must be able to make the thing work so the game works.
#3 After the game is made to where it will work for the DM task to run the machine, then consider what the actual and individual players will want, so long as it doesn't interfere with part 1.
*
*Note: This note connects to both marked places, as it deals with the DM as a player and being only one player. While it isn't the DMs needs that are coming into play being his job to make the game work means that his ability to make something function cannot impede the first part, as he will never be impeding himself. Likewise individual player wants may conflict with each other, but the DM has to be able to prevent them from impeding the game as a whole. So When the DM acts in a manner towards part 1, the needs for THAT one, are for the sake of the many. To make sure the game works for all.
Part 2 is unlikely to interfere with part 1, and when it does, you may need to see if the correct DM is had for you, because of playstyle conflicts or other innocuous reasons, as not always does everyone fit with every game or gamer.
Otherwise it might just be a "bad DM" such as one that hasn't grown yet into the role and is still learning. Everyone starts out as a "bad DM", but some get better while others do not.
So all in all, what this is saying is about how the DM is tasked with doing things that may not always be clear, but is for the sake of everyone playing, no matter who they are from spouse, SO, best friend, total stranger, and even someone they may not really like that much outside of the game.
A DM DMs for the love of the game and making sure others can enjoy the game that DM is running. When that happens, the DM can enjoy the game just as much as the players.
This is what I have taken from that passage, adding to it years of DMing.
(Hope I got all the thoughts in and made clear while eating at the same time as making this post.)
I think Bill91 has the right of it though. He's taken an obviously extreme example and shown exactly how a DM can build that into the campaign world.
Only so long as the DM is willing and interested in running said creation and adding it to the world. If they are not, then it will show in the treatment of that creation. But again could lead to the "non special", where everyone then wants to try some special creation that could run the DM into the ground and lose interest. Then someone else will have to run it and you lose a player either way in the long run.
If you have but one able to DM, which is the greater loss: the player with his special character, or the game itself with no one to run it?
I think maybe looking at a new thread for a broader view that just a singular player might be helpful, but would there be any discussion about a DM willing and interested in playing one type of game, while ALL the players are looking for something else. I doubt so, as the simplest answer is that DM wouldn't be running the game for that group of players.
What would be interesting is to find out how those players work in the game that many are speaking of communication and consideration about. Do the players in these games always work as a team and appoint a player to tell the DM what the group is doing in whole or parts (party leader/delegate), or do those players not communicate and consider the other players when in game and just act and do things on their own?
is that thing?!"
I must spread some around ...
