D&D 5E World-Building DMs

[Nagol]

I offer a new player a seat at the table and see how they interact with the others at the table it may come to pass that the new player does not integrate with the group and moves on with no hard feelings it may also lead to butting of heads over some percieved deifference between players or even with me but actually interveiwing potential player is not something i can get behind. It seems a bit Elitist

It is not elitist; it is an acknowledgement that there are varying expectations towards gaming that can offer mutually assured aggravation and become potentially disruptive. Whether that is a regarding the use of outcome fudging, the inclusion of mature themes, the way some mechanics (like alignment) are interpreted, or how open the campaign is to directional drift (rails vs. sandbox), all preferences may be valid in the population, but there are some that will be inappropriate at any table.

When you have a well-functioning group, why risk everyone's time and enjoyment by bringing someone in cold? Sit down with them and discuss what how you as GM operate, what the group is currently doing, and your expectations of the group and each player. Ask what their expectations are and validate that the person and the group are a good enough fit together.

 

[S'mon]

In my experience, a high proportion of eccentric character-type choices, whether that standard is the campaign's or the published game's, are made by attention-seekers who aren't fully engaging with the shared fantasy -- they're symptoms of a deeper problem.

I have seen this phenomenon - these are often the guys with the 7 page backstories for the
same PC they've already played in umpteen other campaigns.

 

[S'mon]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are no Gary Gygax so I would not go through an "interview" to play in your game. I have enough experience to know that the very fact that you would want to do an interview is a red flag to warn me off.

That's a good thing - then nobody's time gets wasted.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I'm not sure why making a targeted game that some people (generally including the DM, although not necessarily so--sometimes one or two of the players can be really into an idea (6 units) where the DM has no strong feelings (3 units) and just runs it because "why not") will get a lot of enjoyment out of, while others might prefer to sit out is selfish in an objective sense. After all, the total units of enjoyment being created by that gaming experience are higher than the example experience that everyone enjoyed. It might seem unfortunate to the people who, at that particular time, didn't want to play in it. But the next game might be one that they are 6 units in on. Seems to me like having a lot of fun from a certain source (those gaming friends) half the time, while being able to pursue whatever other fun you want the rest of the time, is at least as good as having a moderate amount of fun with that gaming group all the time.

If I knew that a player was going to do nothing but sit around being miserable if they weren't in my current game, I might think differently about it.

Yeah like talk to him about other hobbies, interests, or suggest he seek help. If my game is the only thing holding back someone's misery then he is in trouble.

But assuming that they have other options, I'm probably going to make a targeted game that I as the DM as really excited about, and then invite others who are really going to enjoy it, so we can have our unfathomably cool geek out experience that others won't even understand...rather than having a status quo fun experience that works for all of the people all of the time.

There is only one person I can truly gauge the engagement of -- myself. When I build a campaign idea, I aim for 6-unit engagement for me. That way, I know for certain at least one person is strongly interested. My expectation is any player who is not interested will decline to play. Therefore if I am the only one interested, the campaign is stillborn and I need to come up with another premise. If, on the other hand, enough players want to play then I have a viable game. Typically, there are more potential players that want to play than I have space for.

Now, I'm a passionate and intense person, so that definitely is a matter of preference. But I don't see it as fundamentally selfish to cater to a smaller group that will derive great value from something rather than a larger group that will derive good value from it. I mean, we are talking about role-playing games, which are pretty much as a whole an example of that very phenomenon.

 

[S'mon]

I have no delusions that I am the greatest DM nor even a good
DM for everyone (the latter, because there are too many playstyles and influences).

Exactly - I reckon I'm a good GM - probably no Kevin Kulp/Piratecat, by all accounts , but better than most -
but I'm definitely not a good GM for everyone. Most players love my GMing; occasionally I encounter one who hates it. I'm not a good GM for that player, and that's ok*.

*Although it was funny when I found one guy still ranting on the Internet years later about how I killed his PC.

 

[S'mon]

I offer a new player a seat at the table and see how they interact with the others at the table it may come to pass that the new player does not integrate with the group and moves on with no hard feelings it may also lead to butting of heads over some percieved deifference between players or even with me but actually interveiwing potential player is not something i can get behind. It seems a bit Elitist

I don't normally interview players, but I do try to do a bit of polite pre-screening, especially with established campaigns. Some players are obnoxious and it's much more unpleasant to have to kick someone out of a game than to not let them play in the first place. Usually just talking about character generation pre-game is enough to identify if someone is going to be a jerk ("not a good fit") and exclude them. And usually they'll
withdraw when it's clear they're not a good fit, without having to actually be excluded. I think
the last time I explicitly kicked a player out was 2008 or early 2009 ("My PC isn't dead - he can't die! His backstory says he's cursed to die by a red dragon, so nothing else can kill him!"); and I've GM'd for many dozens of different people since then. (For some reason I've only ever had to deal with bad players when running 3e/Pathfinder; something about the system I suspect. Never had any trouble with pre-3e, 4e,
or 5e D&D.)

 

[bedir than]

Sorry, my tone there was dickish.

The problem I have with your examples is they seem less like compromises based on an understanding of what the player wants and more like rationals to sweep player desires under the rug.

In the examples provided both players were happy and it took some significant discussion.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

<cut for length, even though it was a great post>

That is all true, but shows a different angle of approach from what I was talking about.

I was presuming a group of potential players numbering a single full table (for whatever value the DM considers the table to be full) and a choice between a full table getting moderate to strong enjoyment from the game, or a less than full table getting moderate to extreme enjoyment from the game.

You presume a group of potential players number greater than a full table, and a choice between full table configuration A getting moderate to strong enjoyment from the game, or full table configuration B getting moderate to extreme enjoyment.

At that point, you aren't making the selfish choice between including a friend or not including that friend, but instead the unselfish choice of which friend to include to fill a limited spot (which could become a selfish choice only if you basically always choose one friend over another).

I'm not meaning to fall into the old "geek social fallacy" that you not including everyone is a jerk thing to do, or even say that someone is looking at either playing in the game or sitting at home being miserable and alone with nothing else to occupy their time, so I hope I haven't been coming off as doing so. I'm just saying that a choice of what game to run can be a selfish choice, and that I don't see why a DM would be selfish when they don't have to (which is likely because I derive my enjoyment of gaming more from the people I DM for than from any other aspect of the game).

 

[Shasarak]

So that's what my estimation is of what is actually going on in these scenarios. It's not a binary enjoy/don't enjoy thing. You've got six players (including DM). You could make a game where each of you is going to get about 3 units of enjoyment out of it. Or you could make a game where three of you (including the DM) are going to get 6 units of enjoyment out of it, one of you is going to get 3 units of enjoyment out of it, and the other two are either going to get only 1 or 2 units, or are going to abstain from playing it (allowing someone else who will get 3-6 units of enjoyment to take their place).

I would love to see the situation where you tell Steve that he can not play your game because Mary enjoys it twice as much as he does.

Although it would allow you to score higher in the Competitive RPG Enjoyment Tournament though.

 

[ProgBard]

1. Agree re potential mismatch, but often players just need stronger guidance. I don't
have a set player group. I'll come up with a campaign I want to run, pitch it to the Meetup, and recruit those who want to play. I may occasionally invite specific players who I think might be a good fit, but that is rare. I'm not catering to any specific people - if player X does not want to play, that frees up a space for player Y who does.

I think that's a sane approach. And I think it bears saying that a campaign with any sort of restriction on it can be great for the right group. Despite my nattering about expectations and protocols, that can all go out the window when it comes to a group that can get excited about the same off-the-path concept - at which point you have a case of "people who like this sort of thing will find this to be the sort of thing they like."

2. A dwarf Cleric of Mielikki?! What?! You'll be allowing CG Drow Rangers of Mielikki next!!

To his credit, he does not have even one scimitar, nor indeed have any idea why that would be funny.

And anyway, hardly anyone notices him next to the dwarf druid.