When I GM I often have a plot, campaign, maps and NPCS amongst other pregenerated aids. However, I always am reacting to what I interpret my players want out of the game. This varies from session to session more so than campaign to campaign. One night, everyone might be grumpy and want to kill things so I rework the night's play to go for more hack. Other nights it might be that the group wants more intellectual pursuits so I do background, history and/or investigation.

The question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play? With the threads on saying yes to players and the evils there of, it seemed like the message was "My way or the highway". Of course, I could be misunderstanding those posts.

So, to cater to the group or not?

Thanks,
Bill

I think I cater to my group (or maybe pander would be a better term), but my own range of interests is fairly limited.  So I might offer option B instead of A, but I'm still selecting the night's activities from the list A, B, C.

I think in some ways you have to or nobody will have fun and the group will eventually disintigrate. I don't have a problem switching gears to let the players do try what they want, and would have a problem with any GM that did.

Quote from: HinterWeltThe question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play?

Before the campaign I make sure we (the players and me) are all on the same page with want we want the campaign to be about. On game night, everyone is there to play. The tone/atmosphere of the campaign has already been determined by all of us.

Come game night, we either play the way we planned, with regards to the campiagn's theme/tone or we don't play. Honestly their moods have never really be an issue. If they want something else, they tell me and we play something else or we don't play at all. We continue with the campaign when we are all ready to. But this has happened only once.

Regards,
David R

Yes, I give them what they want.  It's their fantasy; I just make it happen.

But its my fantasy, too, so I put in stuff that I want.  To me, gaming is all about Wang Chunging tonight, and that means everybody have fun tonight.

When I'm deciding what to do and present in the game, I base that decision on the players and what I know of them.

That's not to say that I give them what I want.  But I consider what they want ... sometimes in order to make them fight to get it.

So if they want to be the Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman, it is essential that I realize that about them.  Without knowing that, how would I know that J. Jonah Jameson, the newspaper man bent on destroying their reputation at every turn, will be a valuable tool in my mental workshop?

Tony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?

I'm a Situational GM, so a game with me as GM involves kicking the PCs in the rump to start things off, They react and push back harder, then I react to their reactions, then they react to mine, ad infinitum. We share that joy.

-clash

i think that it is a two way street. The GM plays to needs of  the players. At the same time when the Gm does play to their needs, the players should do their best to buy into it and make if fun for the GM as well.

Quote from: James McMurrayTony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?

Oh ... okay.  So that's talking about both desire and ability, right?  It's not merely that they want a gang-war, it's that their mood makes it much harder for them to get fun out of the same thing they did the previous week.  I'd have to think about that one.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yes, I give them what they want.  It's their fantasy; I just make it happen.

But its my fantasy, too, so I put in stuff that I want.  To me, gaming is all about Wang Chunging tonight, and that means everybody have fun tonight.

Hey! You treat Wang Chung with respect!!



Bill

Quote from: James McMurrayTony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?

Very much so. Thank you James for the assist.

Essentially, I was wondering about the changing needs/wants of the group as play proceeds beyond the GM's initial plan. I have played very fun games where the GM has a plan and you are herded int he right direction. NOTE: this is not railroading so much as supplying positive (and sometimes negative) feedback on the plot of the story. I do prefer a more reactive GM and find no problem with the story going in different directions than I planned. However, it can be fun to explore a GM's view on a world.

Bill

I do prep and such too.  After all, I want to have fun and as GM having a plot, NPCs and locales that I've created are all part of my fun.

However, if the players want something else, I've been known to abandon all the prep work and go with something completely different.

So I guess their fun trumps my fun, if it comes down to that.

Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, I always am reacting to what I interpret my players want out of the game.

[...]

The question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play?

While I do some of this as a GM and want some of this as a player, my personal preference is moderation and the GM needs to make sure that they really understand what the players want out of the game.  For some players, in character reactions or even out of character moaning and complaining is just part of how they play, and if you start adjusting the game to that to try to fix problems that might not be there, you can make the game less fun for them.  

There are also players for whom this can encourage "bad role-playing", in the sense that they start playing the GM directly to get what they want rather than playing the game.  Also, responding to one player's clearly expressed wants can also mess up the game for a player that doesn't express their different set of wants as clearly.

So the GM should be responsive but in moderation, in my opinion.  Know your group if you can and GM accordingly.

Quote from: HinterWeltHey! You treat Wang Chung with respect!!



Bill

Dear Bill:

One day, I was driving my 2-year-old daughter home from Grandma's, listening to a CD which, as it happened, included "Everybody Have Fun Tonight".  

We got home and I got out of the truck, came 'round the side and opened up her door.  As I reached in to undo the straps on her carseat, I heard my daughter sing, clearly:

"Ev-y body have fun to-night!"

I beamed, and almost wept; not only is that my gaming motto (and, in fact, one of my guiding prnciples in life), but my kid liked the song, too.

Respect?  Veneration is closer to the mark.