|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't try to frame it as the players doing the GM a favour.Don't worry. I'm not.
It IS a commitment worthy of respect.Who here has said otherwise? Respect is not a zero-sum game.
No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.
Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.
This pretty clearly illustrates a belief that in an instance where the GM is offering to run a game for a group, or has actively gathered a group together, that he shouldn't deserve any gratitude for the running of the game. You have pretty strongly implied that taking the time to play is a major loss for the player, when they are in the vast majority of cases under no obligation to do so. If they don't want to play then it's their loss. I mean heck even if you missed work to play the game that was your decision (which is still worthy of both gratitude and bewilderment from the GM and other players) and if you have a GM that is somehow forcing you to give up other obligations, there are probably some deeper issues with your personal relationship with said GM that go well beyond the general topic at hand. There are of course going to be certain exceptional circumstances where the GM has in some way forced someone to play who doesn't want to, but those are not what are being discussed and are much more an exception than a norm.
If someone got a bunch of his friends together for laser tag and paid for everyone to play, and everyone had a blast, you'd expect those people to be grateful to their friend right? It's different of course if you aren't having any fun and its the friend's fault, but lets say you never played laser tag before and found it isn't you cup of tea (and the friend is in no way responsible for you not liking the game)? You still ought to be grateful that your friend gave you the opportunity at no expense to you other than time.
"Thanks for playing" to me is something you say or express nonverbally when you gathered a group together, or when specifically talking to someone who gave up other obligations to play. And is not exclusive of player gratitude towards the GM, both can easily happen. It isn't one or the other. Other than that, gratitude from the GM towards the players is their own perogative and should never be expected.
"Thanks for GMing" is something you say, express, or at least imply in your general behavior whenever someone puts in the effort to make a game happen, because without a GM there would be no game. And no GM that provides a genuinely fun game is wrong for expecting even the implication of gratitude. The only time that ingratitude is acceptable is when the game was no fun (and it was the GM's fault). For Christs sake you're playing a game, not helping me move.
Gratitude should never be explicitly demanded from GM to player and vice versa. But it is not unreasonable for a GM (in most cases, see aforementioned) to expect that his players at least feel grateful, even if they don't explicitly express it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to expect the DM to get the right answer. I'm trying to point out that the ability of rational argument to get someone there seems rather limited.
What's that got to do with my post?Then you misunderstand what I was saying.
I was talking about when the GM doesn't even try to HAVE a rational argument (or even a polite dialogue) when questioned/corrected on a rule. The person I was replying to had noted that the middle of the game session isn't always the time to have such a discussion, and I was mentioning that, sadly, my experience of GMs not being willing to have a discussion has too often NOT been because we're in the middle of a game and not keeping things moving.
I said nothing of whether or not they arrive at the correct answer; in fact, in this whole thread, have I suggested such a thing even once? I haven't gone back and checked, but I don't think I have. Which would mean you're bringing that in on your own and ascribing it to me. Which would be pretty uncool.
No, I was referring to things like the time I contradicted a 5-star VO in a rules thread and then received a multi-paragraph email cussing me out. Or the time I asserted that someone in the PFS GM forum got something wrong, and a different multi-star GM jumped in to tell me (and I wish this was hyperbole, but it's not) that I have no right to ever tell a GM that they're wrong. Or when a debate was already ongoing and another 5-star VO found the thread and popped in for no other reason than to name-call everyone who held a certain view (he didn't even address the topic or say why that view was wrong; he just called...
Not cool at all. Those stars don't mean nearly as much as they think they do when it comes to the rules anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to define what we mean by "showing gratitude". I show gratitude(am happy) for games that are not run badly. If the game is objectively* run badly then I am not grateful.
*showing favortism, being a jerk, trying to screw over the players etc etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet people are explicitly demanding gratitude from players here.
You are also ascribing things to me that do not hold true.
No. He showed where you wrote exactly what he claimed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I ask as a player is that the GM is even handed, both mechanically and between players, and that he's open to ideas/suggestions, giving as much respect as I give him.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm a right teachers pet, if you're GMing for me I'm happy to help you stat up monsters, create sidequests for other PCs, run the sidequests if you're burned out, throw together ideas, be a sound board and be absurdly proactive as a PC.
I couldn't stand playing under a GM who just expects the players to shut up and play 'their story' or by the raw AP, which I'm totally aware is a bit entitled, so I try to balance it out by carrying more than my fair share of the weight as a helper.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. He showed where you wrote exactly what he claimed.And yet people are explicitly demanding gratitude from players here.
You are also ascribing things to me that do not hold true.
Actually, I think we're seeing a miscommunication here.
The cited post of TOZ's states there's no need for "gratitude". How I'm seeing people interpret this statement is that there's no need for "respect".
Could it be that TOZ is treating those as two very different things, while you and others are treating them as effectively interchangeable? Perhaps he's not really saying what you think he's saying.
No one asked the GM to do that for them. Expecting gratitude for doing what you personally wanted to do is rather entitled.
Naturally, if your players came to you and asked you to run, then this does not apply. In my experience, it's the GM coming to the players however, and who should be grateful that they are willing to give up their time to play.
This is basically saying that the task of GMing is not something that deserves any kind of respect OR gratitude. Since the GM wanted to do it, nobody owes him anything whatsoever, even basic courtesy like thanks for the job done. The entirety of thanks to be assigned depends on who asked for the campaign, which is, to me, bullshit. TOZ' time is an opportunity cost, i.e. Time he could have done better stuff with. I don't understand it. I just feel sad that people think this way.
Statistics being what they are I'm sure someone will dispute your "always"....
However, I agree with you. Between the forums and "Mail-bag" on several pod-casts I listen to I have heard -0- people ask "I'm a GM in X, I've been trying to get a game started for weeks/months but I just can't find anyone to play with."
On the contrary - lots of players lamenting - "Our GM moved...or I moved to a new town and I can't find a group to game with...any recommendations??"
It would seem then that the norm for anyone willing to GM is they will quickly have more people asking to play than they can handle. That was my experience GMing in college as well. Once word spread we had a game in our dorm, lots of folks I didn't know swung by asking if there was "room for just 1 more PC..please???"
I personally think a lot more people are capable of GMing, its just taking that plunge to run your first session and getting the bug.
Hi. I'm here. Few others are.
That used to be because our location had no gaming community. The good news is that it does now! The bad news is that our gaming community has, like, zero appropriate venues and times and places for those with kids.
:/
As a GM, I have one person I can play with, and while she's awesome (as she's my wife!) it's a very different experience. I do wish that we could get a large group together again. It's just not possible.
Though... maybe... finally... I'll have that option again, soon!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to define what we mean by "showing gratitude". I show gratitude(am happy) for games that are not run badly. If the game is objectively* run badly then I am not grateful.
*showing favortism, being a jerk, trying to screw over the players etc etc.
Yeah, though I feel this was strongly implied in my statements about nonverbal and implied gratitude. But alas, it'd be good to get back on the main topic, if anyone has anything else to add.
To what standard do you expect GMs to live up to?
I expect them to be relatively nice people to spend time with, and, hopefully, have a basic idea of a game and/or rules.
So long as they're pleasant people, the game time can be pleasant - maybe not because of the game itself, but because of the person running it.
I'd prefer for them to have a basic idea of the game and/or rules in order to make basic decisions and have the general concept of the flow of things. This can manifest as "knowing the rules" well (including citations) or "knowing the gist well" (having a basic understanding of how abilities flow and interact) or "knowing the variable storylines well" (having a basic idea of the general flow of how the game could go under a few different circumstances) or "know the world well" (have a solid understanding of the world at-large and/or the people in it) or "have a broad competence" (have a broad and basic grasp of many of those things, even if a deep one isn't achieved in any given one of them).
I've found, in the past, that any of those could well create a solid gaming experience, but none of them necessarily equate to creating a solid gaming experience.
So long as a GM is willing to be with their group and learn how to play with their group, that group will benefit from having a GM. And, honestly, there might be other ways to have a decent GM; I dunno, I just created that list off the top of my head based off of techniques I've seen in action.
I like to game. I'm grateful when someone is willing to run. Just because they're willing to run does not entitle gratitude; but presupposing they aren't actively unpleasant does entitle someone to gratitude for paying money, and putting in effort to help everyone be happy and have a good time.