Your game or theirs?

This reminds me of this, but to a much larger degree:
Problem: Unappreciative Players? A few days ago, I spent hours upon hours working on a dungeon, which my players just entered. I fine-tuned a series of items for them to receive until the items were perfect. They received the first of those items, a staff, yesterday.

When I described to those who were listening (two people) what the staff looked like, the warlock immediately started shouting, "I want it! I want it! I want it!" This was before any Knowledge (arcana) checks had been made to see what powers the staff possessed. For all the warlock knew, the staff would instantly kill him upon touch. So, when someone finally made the DC 15 Knowledge (arcana) check, I described what the staff did. The night before, I had meticulously prepared a long paragraph on the history of the staff, where it came from, who made it, etc. I also made sure the staff was good for their level. Yet all the warmage, who took the staff, cared about was what powers it had.

This kind of thing happens too much. I feel that there is an art to DMing: an art to building dungeons and creating items. Yet, my art is being ignored. I also feel that there is an art to being a player, and that this group has not, and may never, paint the portrait of their character.
Is this normal behavior for a group? Are my expectations too high? Am I just over-sensitive? My group and I are all middle-schoolers.
-- Noah, from AskWizards.com​


Noah, the truth is that yes, you are being over-sensitive, but it isn't from your expectations being too high. That presupposes that your standards are high and that those of your players are not. It is because your expectations are too wholly yours. "My art is being ignored?" Please. Understand this -- Your players will never, Never, EVER be as interested in the fine details of your world and your campaign as you are. They might be interested to a certain point, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the flow of the game, as long as it is window dressing or attractive decoration.


I can also tell you that the more you throw at them, the less interested they will become. Players, you see, have the great disadvantage of not knowing all the behind-the-scenes details that make the adventure the perfect extension of your campaign world and help hold all the individual pieces of information together. What seems to you like interesting history that ties together your detailed world-system seems like a bunch of random names, places, and figures to them. Our minds work by linking data. Needing to hold too much information on the front end, when the organizing systems that hold it together don't come until the back end, is a bad strategy. My other field is education, and that approach is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do if you want people to learn, absorb, retain, and be able to use information. Because D&D is set up as a sort of mystery/exploration game where you gradually pick up information and put it together as you go, you can't dump everything on the players up front without spoiling the dramatic tension you're trying to build.

Read again what you wrote. You talk about all of your hard work, how much care and effort went into it, how artistic your creation is. You said you worked and worked to make the items perfect -- but perfect for whom? You have a certain idea of what the characters are and what the campaign should be, but evidently the players have a different view. You crafted an item that exactly fits what you think they want and need, and yet when they find it, they neither want nor need it, or even if they do, they aren't interested in it for the reasons you think they should be.

You know the whole story, so you want to know how it fits. That's the relevant information to the DM. Players want to know what the item does and how it fits what they are doing with their characters -- that's the relevant information to them. You say the warlock wants the item before he knows what it does -- so what? You say it might kill him -- it might also give him great power. Why wouldn't he want it? Trust me, old-time D&Ders would often never touch anything until it had been identified, because cursed items were pretty common back then. Even in modern D&D where cursed items are rare, long-time players have that idea burned into their minds by painful experience. You should be happy that your players are still excited when they find something and at least willing to experiment a little!

So what if the warmage wants to know what it does? That's the part that's important to him! He's playing the game, too! It's not just you. Let him have fun on his own terms. You can make the item's history important, and if the player chooses to ignore it, then some consequences may come along (for example, if the item once belonged to a powerful wizard whose minions will try to reclaim it if it is seen in public, or if it is marked with runes of the Evil Empire of Kariva and anyone carrying it is suspected of being a devil-worshiper). But that can happen later. By delaying the information delivery, you don't overload the players with info they don't care about in the moment when treasure falls into their hands. The point is that the powers are what is important to the player. It can be interesting to know where your item comes from and all of that, but from a player's perspective that's just packaging. It's what's inside that counts.

A good idea to bridge the gap is to look at Weapons of Legacy and think about creating items using that model, where the history and the items' powers go together integrally. To learn how to fully use the item, you must learn about its history and the rituals required to activate it. The players get the powers, you get to design a detailed history, and the two actually get to work together instead of against each other. This also allows magic items to scale up in power with characters (as the characters uncover more of the history, which reveals ever more powers), instead of characters constantly 'trading in' their items as they move up, selling off lower-power items and buying or creating newer, fancier models.
The 'legacy item' route is a lot of work, but it seems as if you don't mind doing the work. It also gives a tangible way to make your work relevant, to give the players a reason to listen to your detailed backstory other than just to humor you.

I don't mean to depress you or crush your spirit, but it's a hard fact of DMing. Learn it now and you'll be spared a lot of disappointment down the road. Creating things as a DM is kind of like giving a present. Say you spend lots of time choosing and buying or even making a present, one with great sentimental value to you that reminds you of some special time you spent with the person receiving it. They open it and you get nearly as excited as them because they're going to share the same warm, fuzzy memory you have, and then … nothing. They don't have the same automatic association with it that makes it magical to you. Even if you explain it, they can only come around to it second-hand. They will never feel about it what you feel. Their excitement is over tearing open the package and the thrill of discovering what's inside. Sometimes you'll get lucky, and the person will sense the meaning of the gift right off so you can share that magic moment you hoped for, but that that will be rare. Even when you get something that the recipient honestly likes, you are hoping for a reaction that you're just not going to get very often.

As I stated in an earlier column, DMs sometimes assume that the effort they put into a world or a setting or a character or an encounter or an item somehow earns them the right to validation by the players. Ask any comedian -- you can work on a joke all week, but if the audience doesn't laugh, then it wasn't funny, no matter how much effort you poured into it. You can't be funny because you want to be, and you can't be funny by trying really hard. Comedy does take work, and effort and desire certainly improve your chances of being funny, but sometimes it flies and sometimes it dies. The amount of work you did has nothing to do with it. A totally off-the-cuff remark might make your friends die laughing, where the jokes you've been rehearsing in your mind all week get nothing but a polite chuckle or a groan.

The heart of the matter is that you want control. As a DM, you already have plenty of control. You determine what they find (people, places, or things) as they travel around the campaign world. What you can't control is their response, and you shouldn't. If all the characters act the way you dictate, then you are writing a novel, and the other players are just sitting around and watching. D&D is a team game, not "The Noah Show." Dial back a little on the creating and spend more time listening to what players want. Then, when you do create things, you can do it with a good sense of what will interest them instead of what you think will interest them. When you dive into history and backstory in the campaign, don't overdo it. Make it relevant to the characters and their interests, and make it relevant to the mechanics of the game. Those are the best ways to make sure your ideas and your work will not go to waste.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I too would be interested to hear some of the rules myself. It could be that they are changing a fundamental feature of the gameplay for your players, and introducing anything like this after play has begun radically alters how a player sees their character, or what direction they see that character going on.

All-in-all, that can be a VERY BAD THING for the player.

On the other hand, as much as everyone makes the diplomatic way sound, I've found that when I give my players a house rules document that's any longer than the single side of one page, most of the info is getting glossed over, forgotten, or entirely unread. This could be a function of my players (they are busy people for the most part, and those that aren't are lazy like nobody's business), but that might be indicative of other things, too.

But no matter how you want to cut, that's how it is. I'm just a DM, not their mentor, teacher, boss, parent, or anything else (well, I'm their friend, too)...therefore, it's not really worth extra effort from my end to add in more than a single sided piece of paper worth of house rules. So that's what I do.

If there are glaring problems during play, we make a note of it and then handle it AT THE END OF THE SESSION (or via email). I've never had anything that was so bad that we had to "replay" a session, so this method has worked beautifully.


P.S. I've played under DMs who've had pages and pages of house rules. I'm a bit of a rules-lawyer, and even my eyes glaze over at such a large document. Remember, I bought the D&D book to play D&D. I didn't buy it to throw in the trash and play your home-brew system.
 

That's a great quote, Rechan,

The game belongs to all of you. The players are spending their time at the table just as you are. Granted, as a DM, you spend more time preparing but remember that your ultimate goal is for the players to have fun. That's your responsibility. They are not a captive audience.

A DM is sort of a junior game designer. You have to build something people want to play.

I was listening to the game designers for the game "Portal" who tested their game with folks. Every so often they would say "what do you think is going on in the story right now". Every time people said "I'm not sure", they REMOVED part of the story. They didn't add more words - they knew the words were being ignored. Instead they stripped the story down.

I try to do this in my own game. If people aren't really getting it, I strip the plot down until they do. I don't try to constantly explain it.

As far as rules go, if you make house rules, you have to accept their input. You don't have some certification that makes you a better designer than they are. You might have more experience but you have to show them that the rule is good.

I email out any house rules for discussion a couple of weeks before I implement it (or not). Feedback and arguments roll back and forth until I make an official ruling. I did this for the ambiguity with Stinking Cloud for example.

Most of the time, however, I DO NOT use house rules except for one-shot games designed to be played differently (See my 4e-Lite rules in the Rules section for example).

Anyway, its all about maintaining a loose grip and remembering that this is their game too.
 


So what do you think? Should I accept all input and have massive, in-depth discussions about every ruling I make and every rule change I introduce and allow players carte blanche approval or disapproval of everything I do, or should I just tell them that either they play in my game, or don't?

The latter, obviously - but given this, do keep house rules to an absolute minimum, and make them very clear to the players. Before changing anything, be sure to ask yourself "Do I need to change this?"

Also, here's an important thing I've learned - it's much, much better to change GM's-side rules than player's side-rules. If you can get the same result by changing a GM-side rule, always do it that way. Example: Halving XP awards and doubling XP needed to advance have the same effect (leaving aside item crafting), but the former is a GM-side rule that the players don't have to remember, the latter a players'-side rule. IME the former is much less likely to cause resentment.

So, eg in my various 3e campaigns, I try to use the PHB unaltered, but I change rate of XP awards, NPC class and level demographics, treasure awards etc to change the feel of the campaign to what I want. Rather than cap spells at 6th level, banning 7th-9th, I've found it's better just to keep the PC & NPC level range to 1-12 (say 13+ are demigods) and tweak XP awards to suit. From the player perspective the game plays normally, just there are no 13th+ NPCs, and the campaign will run to 12th instead of 20th.
 

Frankly, given the terms and the attitude you set out in this post, I'd flag you as a problem player and boot you. .

Player: "The GM must be obeyed without question!"

GM: "You're a problem player. Go away."

Hmm. :erm:

I think the GM's rulings and rules should not be questioned - unless the GM asks for input - and I believe that whether I'm GM or player. I hate being a player and seeing other players stomp all over the GM, demanding extra treasure, re-done rulings et al. I like GMs who are firm, fair but uncompromising. The sense of entitlement 3e brought to some players is its worst contribution by far, I'm glad 4e apparently dialled back on that.
 

What seems to have happened here is that you made an IF/THEN statement; i.e., if X then Y, where X is the desired outcome and Y is the conditions placed upon that outcome. The players, wanting X (you to DM) agreed to Y (your rules, etc.), but then tested to see if commitment to Y was required to achieve X. And it was not.

What you should do is determine what conditions are necessary to make DMing worthwhile to you, make a new IF/THEN statement with those exact conditions, and accept the consequences of not achieving them.

Example:

DM Joe hates, cannot stand, and absolutely is repulsed by oranges. So he makes a rule: "IF I am to run this game, THEN there can be no oranges eaten at the table."

If Player Bob begins eating an orange at the table, DM Joe has three choices: (1) continue to DM for everyone, (2) remove Player Bob from the table, or (3) stop DMing.

If he chooses (1), it shouldn't surprise him that Player Sue and Player George feel entitled to eat oranges at the table, too. Indeed, the only real value to the IF/THEN statement was to cast doubt upon any future IF/THEN statements DM Joe might make.

If he chooses (2), there is an immediate penalty for eating an orange, but if Player Bob was important to the group -- or his character was! -- Player Sue and Player George might be harshly penalized as a result. Moreover, the DM now must decide what to do with Player Bob's character. If the character is now simply "not there", might oranges appear at the table every time a PC death, a tight spot, or a TPK is looming?

If he chooses (3), Player Sue and Player George end up paying for Player Bob's eating the orange. But, if DM Joe is really serious about the whole "no oranges" thing, he should take this option. When Players Sue and George complain, DM Joe is justified in saying, "I told you all about the no oranges rule. You might want to talk it over with Bob. I'll be ready to run next week, if you still want to play." Of course, he might discover that his benefit (X) isn't as much of a benefit as he thought......he might end up alone next week.

Of the three, though, I would recommend (3).



RC
 


Kzach: "Where do you guys find the time to be so diplomatic?"

Me: "Problem player."

You're ignoring that DMing is a whole different kettle of fish from playing, and there's no indication that Kzach is rude when he's a player. Life is too short for arguments over the game - the solution as a player is not to argue with the GM, the solution as a GM is to make a ruling and move on. As Kzach said, this is particularly true when playing with a variable group of people you don't know well.
 

Remove ads

Top