Hey guys!
As a GM, to what extent should I be trying to make sure my players are having a good time, and how much of it is simply making sure the adventure runs coherently and the system is adjudicated correctly?
If I can tell a player is not having a good time over a couple of sessions, what if anything should I be doing about that, or should I just let the cards fall where they may, as bad stuff happens to adventurers and it's really not my problem (or within my ability to control) how the rest of the people at the table react to situations.
Should I be leaving things as "Just the facts" -- or to what extent should I be trying to give players a sense of accomplishment, and if so, how?
-V
As a GM I consider making sure my players have a good time to be my primary goal. Of course most of the players I have played with find coherent adventures adjudicated fairly to be a positive experience and so enhances their "good time" anyway.
However, as with any situation where you are responsible for group dynamics (as each player is themselves to a lesser extent), sometimes the best way to ensure a positive experience is to exercise a little deferred gratification and other times to provide a means for the group to overcome a prior setback. Also it is usually true that the enjoyment of the group as a whole requires individual players to manage their own expectations (not everyone in the party can take that awesome +4 sword, only one of them can).
In other words, having the best time sometimes requires periods of challenge and even frustration so that the superior experience of overcoming difficulties can be experienced.
When I see a player is not having a good time, I will either reach out to them outside of the game, or if it is disrupting the game in some way, I will pause the game to talk to them.
I do make an effort to find out exactly what each player prefers in the game so that I can do the best I can to make the game not only enjoyable in the group, but to give individual players something to enjoy so long as I can do so more or less equally between the players.
It's kind of the whole point, so... Very hard?
Fudge te dice when you have to, rule of cool and rule 0 beat every other rule.
But also let your players fail, and make them have consequences for bad actions. Invest in a dm screen (cardboard rocks) and fudge that 6d6 falling damage so
The barb who jumped the cliff to spear the harpy is bleeding out, but not dead. Then the other PC's have a fun race down the cliff while said harpy pecks at them.
That kinda stuff. You're not a robot, you're the DM. How much fun can you have when the party wipes and your story dies?
Making sure your players are having fun is A#1 priority of the DM. If they are not having fun for whatever reason, you adjust the campaign as necessary and mediate disputes and rules questions as necessary. Your priorities should be:
1) Every player has fun.
2) Story and pace run smooth.
3) Mediate disputes (eliminate if you can).
Even if it's a printed Paizo Adventure Path. Scale it down, go off-track, insert more or less combat, more or less downtime, etc...
You, as both the storyteller and the mediator, have control over the game board.
The players, as participants, have control over their actions.
Try not to cross the streams.
If this is a dice issue, as others have said: fudge. If not, I'd honestly talk to the player. It can be a bit awkward, I know, but just tell them that they seem uninterested/not enjoying the campaign and ask them what they'd like to see/what they aren't enjoying. If it is boredom, you can try to involve their character more (I see people who play a combat character who does nothing outside of combat. Some like it, some don't but continue on that path). Perhaps have NPCs talk to them in particular or develop their character a little bit in one session.
One tip I read online for keeping everyone interested is to, before each session, write down ~10 things you could do to develop each character (relatively minor) and see if you can include one for each character. Hope that helps you, too.
But yes, it's the #1 priority. If players aren't having fun, GMs usually don't. And one player falling into disinterest can cause the entire table to.
If one particular player isn't having fun, it could be something easily fixable (e.g. he's disappointed with one of the choices he made for his PC, but he would be perfectly happy if he could do some retooling) or it could be essentially unfixable (e.g. he just doesn't like the game system, period).
My two cents: If it's an easy fix, fix it, but don't sweat the really hard stuff. (That's assuming that everyone else is enjoying the game.)
|
Should I be leaving things as "Just the facts" -- or to what extent should I be trying to give players a sense of accomplishment, and if so, how?
Like my marriage counselor always says: "You can't make someone else happy."
But, you can talk to your player(s) and see if there are any adjustments that you can make to will increase everyone's fun-level. Sometimes, tiny changes make a huge difference.
-Skeld
I'm not a fan of fudging the dice. The dice are there to add randomness and probability and should be trusted.
That said, a GM isn't a disinterested third party, you aren't a football referee. When I GM I am a fan of the PCs, I want to see them do cool and interesting things as well as overcome difficult personal struggles, like characters on tv shows I like. It's my job to set up interesting situations for them that they can overcome. Sometimes it's easy, because it's fun to watch them kick ass, other times it's challenging, rarely it's nigh impossible to watch how they recover and try a new way.
Combined with the first part, if you want things to go a certain way, don't use the dice, just narrate what happens. This shouldn't be a significant result, but rather lead to another interesting situation. Like perception checks, I never use them to present significant plot elements,I just pick a PC to notice it.
Really you need to talk to the player and see what is up for them.
Not really sure what specifically your asking. It is a pretty broad spectrum. Is the problem your sensing attitude of the players, failures of the PCs making them bummed out, they are hoping for a different GM style than your hitting them with, they find your map drawing skills inadequet and are wonding why your not shelling out the cash for dwarven forge replicas for all encounters.
If I can tell a player is not having a good time over a couple of sessions, what if anything should I be doing about that,
Try this “Hey, Bob, I notice that you don’t really seem to be having a whole lot of fun the last couple of sessions. Care to talk about it? What’s the problem? “
Agreed with Gnomezrule, having some more info would be helpful.
Everyone's fun is #1. Everything else is just window dressing.
I don't know about the rest of you but IME every player without fail wants to feel cool or special. They feel it in different ways but even the wallflowers like being complimented. So...do that.
Let's say you have a player that's terrible with combat and doesn't do well at optimizing. He is however VERY intelligent and plays his character that way, including maxing out every knowledge skill he has. Throw him some puzzles or riddles or a linguistics test or something; have a villain that actually chooses not to fight simply so he has his favorite chess opponent still around; have a girl fall in love with his big brain instead of the handsome bard or the brawny fighter.
The other thing I suggest: play to everyone's strengths. I do mean everyones, including your own. If a player LOVES chit-chatting with other NPCs even though his Cha is an 11, have NPCs seek him out as the defacto face anyway. Got a guy that thrives on mayhem? Throw in a fight scene where there's no other way but straight through the middle of a horde of goblins to get the mcguffin!
Don't forget about you in all this. Identify why you got on this side of the screens in the first place and then do that.
Stay positive and be open to your players, that's my last bit of advice. Many killer GM's seem to think its you against them; its more like you AND them... and that's all.