"Is everybody happy?!"

[Jaelithe]

I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.

Is that the prevailing sentiment in the modern game? It seems to me that running a campaign the primary characteristics of which you cannot stand simply because the players are delighted makes impossible the old standard, "A good time was had by all."

As an example: Evil-dominated and/or triumphant campaigns. I cannot abide such, and would never oversee one. Does that make me unreasonable, if the players as one wish to "take a dip in the deep-raved end," as it were?

I've always found the best method of deciding on a campaign is to present the players with a handful of possibilities—say, five or six, of which a couple they themselves contribute—and letting them narrow it down to a few, then making the final selection from those three. This way, everyone's involved with the decision-making process.

Opinions?

[Josh M.]

The whole group needs to be having a good time; players and DM. The game is in trouble if either side isn't having fun. If either side is not enjoying themselves, then the game loses steam and slows to a crawl. It feels more like clocking in at a job, than a pastime meant for fun and socializing.

I've ran several games as DM, that the players were enjoying, but for one reason or another, I simply wasn't. I'd keep going and try to push through it, but after many more sessions, if I was still not feeling it, I'd give the campaign up right then and there. If it was a published module, I'd even give the module to the group so that they can continue if they wanted.

I think a lot of times, the players forget that the DM is also playing the game, and has just as much right to a good time as they do. I've seen players argue and bicker with DM's, and make unreasonable demands to facilitate their fun, all flying in the face of what the DM is trying to present, without a thought given to the repercussions to the game at large.

[Arnwyn]

Jaelithe wrote:

I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.

A mystifying and inexplicable position indeed, though I can't say I've seen it all that explicitly (and only subtly hinted-at, I think).

Needless to say, I consider the above opinion, if truly held, to be the height of wrongness and stupidity.

Quote:

I've always found the best method of deciding on a campaign is to present the players with a handful of possibilities—say, five or six, of which a couple they themselves contribute—and letting them narrow it down to a few, then making the final selection from those three. This way, everyone's involved with the decision-making process.

That's generally how we do it (mostly). The DM presents a few options of what he/she wants to run, and the players come to a consensus from the options presented.

[Pan]

We rotate GMs. The very last thing we want to do is play in a game where the GM has no heart in it. I can wait or find another game if I need something the GM doesnt want to provide. While some restrictions may seem excessive, I have never been able to not have fun still in a game because of them.

[Grumpy TOZ]

Quote:

"Is everybody happy?!"

No.

[Jaelithe]

Please ... tell us what we can do.

[Tinkergoth]

Josh M. wrote:

The whole group needs to be having a good time; players and DM. The game is in trouble if either side isn't having fun. If either side is not enjoying themselves, then the game loses steam and slows to a crawl. It feels more like clocking in at a job, than a pastime meant for fun and socializing.

I've ran several games as DM, that the players were enjoying, but for one reason or another, I simply wasn't. I'd keep going and try to push through it, but after many more sessions, if I was still not feeling it, I'd give the campaign up right then and there. If it was a published module, I'd even give the module to the group so that they can continue if they wanted.

I think a lot of times, the players forget that the DM is also playing the game, and has just as much right to a good time as they do. I've seen players argue and bicker with DM's, and make unreasonable demands to facilitate their fun, all flying in the face of what the DM is trying to present, without a thought given to the repercussions to the game at large.

Pretty much how I view it. This is the entire reason my Skulls & Shackles group stopped. Out of the entire group, there was one player who wasn't playing in a way seemingly designed to drive me to a murderous rage (killing every non Half-Orc NPC that pops up because "that's what my character would do", constant misogynistic comments, non-stop rules lawyering from people who barely had a grasp on the rules anyway... over the course of a year they managed to hit pretty much every beserk button for me). Eventually it got to the point where I thought "Sod this for a game of soldiers" and called the whole thing off.

My new groups are much more to my liking, and everyone seems to be having fun with the Shattered Star game I GM and the Reign of Winter game one of my players GMs.

So to answer the OP, everyone SHOULD be happy, on the proviso that everyone includes the GM. And I use the same method of saying "here are a number of options, let's see what the group is interested in."

[Matt Thomason]

Jaelithe wrote:

I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.

I'd say it's the responsibility of the group as a whole. That means a number of things:

- Communication. The GM and players need to discuss the type of game they want, before starting it, and ensure they're all on the same page.

- Being honest with each other. If the group wants something the GM isn't going to be happy running, the GM needs to say so, and the group probably needs to assign someone else to run that game. Anyone who decides they're going to go along with the rest at this point just to get into the group, and then bring their requirements up mid-game, is going to cause trouble.

- Knowing when to compromise. This one is different for everyone, there's no way to come up with a hard and fast rule that's fair to every possible way the human mind can be wired. Just know how far you're willing to bend for the sake of everyone enjoying the game, and don't make selfish demands on the group beyond those you need for your enjoyment. Like I said, that's going to be different points for different people, and can also be dependent on circumstances.

- Knowing when to bow out. After discussing expectations, it's possible that it's just not going to work out in a way everyone can enjoy. Know when to relax those expectations for the sake of everyone else, and also know when to say "well, it's obvious everyone else wants something I don't, so I'll let you guys. get on and enjoy it." Now, obviously depending on existing social ties, that point is going to be different for everyone, and may not ever come.

- Delivering on the promise. By this point, everyone still present (including whoever now holds the GM spot) has agreed on something. They need to stick to that, and not change halfway through the game - that goes for both what the GM is delivering and what the players are expecting.