I used to worry ... really, genuinely worry ... as a GM when some player would come in with a concept that I was convinced they couldn't have fun with.  "I want to play a cool, level-headed, unflappable rogue in Call of Cthulhu" or "I want to play a complete pacifist in Shadowrun" or like that.

Then, somewhere along the line, I stopped worrying.  I delegated, in my mind, the task of "Making sure Joe has fun" to Joe.  Everything got sooo relaxing that I had plenty of time to have fun myself.  And, for the most part, people are creative enough to make their own fun, even with characters I wouldn't have had any faith in, personally.  So it's all good.

Something made me think about the contrast in styles today, so ... a post, and an assertion:  If you're the GM, you don't have to take on responsibility for everybody's fun, or indeed anybody's fun.  Sometimes you can just say "I'm here to do a job, and that job is to provide a good game ... if Joe can't have fun in a good game, that's Not My Problem."

Then you'd be failing as a GM.

The fun or misery or boredom of people at the game table is affected by that of others, because happiness, misery and boredom are contagious.

One of the jobs of the GM is to act as a group mediator, bringing the different wishes of the players together and making them complement rather than clash.

If the group consists of individuals who are indifferent to one another's fun and misery, why are they a group? I can be indifferent to others on my own, and won't have empty cheetos packets to clean up afterwards.

If you as GM aren't going to help me have fun, if I have to do it all myself, what do I need you for? Why would I ask you to be the GM?

Because we have a game group, we have a game master. Unless of course you have some utopian group where everyone always automatically compromises and works together and ensures each gets to contribute as much as they are comfortable, then they don't need a GM. But most groups aren't like that, most groups have human beings in them who are imperfect.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf the group consists of individuals who are indifferent to one another's fun and misery, why are they a group? I can be indifferent to others on my own, and won't have empty cheetos packets to clean up afterwards.

I'm not sure if Tony is really saying he is indifferent to the fun of his players.  Just that he doesn't feel a particular responsibility to ensure they have fun.  No more so then any other person at the table.

And I agree.  

If a player creates a character that is unlikely to be much fun in the game, that is ultimately their responsibility.  I'd expect the GM to issue a warning... (ie, "You want to play a pacifist?  Are you sure?  There is probably going to be a lot of combat?")  But if the player is sure... who the hell gets to say otherwise?

Obviously there are degrees to these things. You can play a character you'll obviously be bored with if you really want to, but you can't play a character which will fuck everything up.

So a coward in a campaign with a bit of combat is okay, provided the player isn't going to whinge when they can't have their character enter combat, and/or they can buy off the cowardice (if it's some point-buy system). If they'll just be quietly bored for a few minutes, that's okay.

But if they're going to be bored the whole time then that's going to seep into the rest of the group, and it's time for the GM to lay the old smackdown on that character concept, because it'll fuck things up. Let's face it, when the player says, "no, I'm sure, it'll be fine!" that's a klaxon sounding saying "alert! alert! whinging ahead!" A few sessions from now there'll be tears.

And if they create a beserk bad-tempered racially-intolerant magic-fearing orc in a campaign with a mixed adventuring party and magic, then that'll fuck things up, too.

If the player is sure, who gets to say otherwise? The Game Master, that's who. It's not Game Non-Judgmental Recommender, Anarcho-Syndacalist Co-Ordinator, it's Game Master.

The GM is a benevelont dictator ruling for the good of the many. If that person proves to be not benevolent, or incompetent, then there can at any time be a coup, unless the players are too lazy, and would rather play in a crap game than GM a good one themselves.

In a game group, we are all responsible for one another's fun. But the GM has greater responsibility. That's why they get to wear the Viking Hat, while the players have to wear the funny little caps with the propellors on them.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThen you'd be failing as a GM.

Wow, somebody willing to tell me on the basis of nothing but his personal preferences that I'm a failure as a GM.  And straight out of the gate!

Sir, I salute your ballsy stupidity.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf you as GM aren't going to help me have fun, if I have to do it all myself, what do I need you for? Why would I ask you to be the GM?

As a GM, I have a job to do.  My doing that job may well contribute to your fun, but that doesn't mean that guaranteeing your fun is my job description.

Say we're playing soccer.  I lob you a nice, solid pass right in front of the opponent's goal, at a time when you are free of coverage, and in perfect position to take the shot.  If you fuck up the shot, that doesn't mean I've failed as a soccer player.  That means I did my part, and you blew your chance for glory.  And that's okay with me, because ... frankly ... I did my part and I'm not taking responsibility for anything beyond that.

Giving you good opportunities to score?  My job as a soccer team-mate.  Making sure you capitalize on them?  Not My Job.

Likewise:  If I provide a rich world, filled with challenge, intrigue, adventure and rollicking fun ... and you come in with an emotionally scarred turtle-character, and refuse to engage in any of the fun, that doesn't mean I've failed as a GM.  That means I did my part, and you blew your chance for glory.  And that's okay with me, because ... hey ... I did my part and I'm not taking responsibility for anything beyond that.

Giving you good opportunities to have fun?  My job as a GM.  Making sure you capitalize on them?  Not My Job.

The way I would put it is, A relaxed GM is a better GM.   Worrying about *whatever* during a game is bound to make the GM less effective, and in all likelihood the ripple effect will be that the Players will have less fun.   So while it does not necessarily follow that a relaxed GM causes Players to have fun, it certainly removes at least one inhibitor.   So I approve.

I also think it works like this:  Some Players refuse to have fun, and that's not the fault of the GM.   Some people in general are just miserable people who don't have fun playing RPGs, or Tennis, or watching TV or going to work, or Sky Diving, or anything.   They are just miserable people.   When I encounter a person like this, I don't feel like it's my responsibility to "make them have fun" at my game, or anyplace else.   Does that mean I don't care about them?   Umm... well sometimes.   But that's not the point.  The point is that I'm not responsible for making them have fun.  So in that sense I agree.

Seems to me it's not a bad proposition that if the GM is having fun, and is relaxed, that it is more likely that the Players will have fun too, rather than less likely, though not a guarantee.  

- Mark

Quote from: TonyLBGiving you good opportunities to have fun?  My job as a GM.  Making sure you capitalize on them?  Not My Job.

This is an important distinction and it goes beyond just being able to relax as a GM (though that is important as well).  Starting to feel responsible to ensure that your players capitalize on the opportunities you created is a step closer to the railroad.  It's potentially making assumptions about what's fun for them based on what you think is fun.

How can you say someone "will not" have fun playing a pacifist in Shadowrun (or a rogue in CoC)? I might have a blast trying to keep my character alive and morally intact in such a violent game (in my experience Shadowrun games tend to be extremely violent).

Its the responsibility of the GM to provide opportunities for adventure not ride rough shot over character creation, and force a particular style of play on his players.

Be upfront with the players as to what type of campaign you will be running, so they don't have to go into character creation in the dark. Also take into account the types of characters the players make, and work them into your game world.

Its not just your world its also your players.

Quote from: TonyLBSomething made me think about the contrast in styles today, so ... a post, and an assertion:  If you're the GM, you don't have to take on responsibility for everybody's fun, or indeed anybody's fun.  Sometimes you can just say "I'm here to do a job, and that job is to provide a good game ... if Joe can't have fun in a good game, that's Not My Problem."

My buddy and I were talking about this very thing today -- I truly think there is only so much a GM can do. I can make an interesting setting, set up situations and make the PCs' actions matter in the world. However, at that point, it is the players' responsibility to realize that they will have more fun if they invest themselves in that setting and those situations.

Now, do I often think, "my NPCs aren't good enough" or "the plot hooks I have made aren't compelling enough?" I do because I share responsibility for what happens at the table. I try to do learn from my mistakes and GM better.

But players also share that responsibility ... for their fun as well as everyone elses'. For this reason, at some point, you as a player have to suspend not only your disbelief, but also your tendency to play the Mysterious Loner Who Just Doesn't Care and try to find a reason to buy into the premise of the game.

Quote from: TonyLBSomething made me think about the contrast in styles today, so ... a post, and an assertion:  If you're the GM, you don't have to take on responsibility for everybody's fun, or indeed anybody's fun.  Sometimes you can just say "I'm here to do a job, and that job is to provide a good game ... if Joe can't have fun in a good game, that's Not My Problem."

I disagree. I don't think it's quite that black and white.

Take for instance, your examples of potentially problematic characters. They can be due to a failing of a GM to properly communicate what genre, tone and mood he is going for. These things can be taken for granted when playing in a popular game/setting, like Star Wars. But that's not always the case.

I've realised sometimes that I hadn't properly exposed to the players what I was going for. The first thing I do when I get a character that might cause problems is to go one more time over the setting, genre and mood. I also take great care if the player is unfamiliar with this particular system and even more if he's unfamiliar with roleplaying.

I'm not going to take sole responsability but yeah, it is my problem. As a player, I've had several similar experiences, where I realised (sometimes too late during the game) that this is really not what I was expecting. It's especially frustrating because a lot of people with a lot of imagination tend to take for granted that you will read their thoughts.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThen you'd be failing as a GM.

The fun or misery or boredom of people at the game table is affected by that of others, because happiness, misery and boredom are contagious.

One of the jobs of the GM is to act as a group mediator, bringing the different wishes of the players together and making them complement rather than clash.

If the group consists of individuals who are indifferent to one another's fun and misery, why are they a group? I can be indifferent to others on my own, and won't have empty cheetos packets to clean up afterwards.

If you as GM aren't going to help me have fun, if I have to do it all myself, what do I need you for? Why would I ask you to be the GM?

Because we have a game group, we have a game master. Unless of course you have some utopian group where everyone always automatically compromises and works together and ensures each gets to contribute as much as they are comfortable, then they don't need a GM. But most groups aren't like that, most groups have human beings in them who are imperfect.

I disagree here, just because you are a GM of a game doesn't mean that you have to warp the game to ensure that someone who is obviously trying to fuck with the group via his character concept gets his quotient of fun. The guy with the bizarro character is being a cocksmock, why cater to him?

Quote from: jeff37923I disagree here, just because you are a GM of a game doesn't mean that you have to warp the game to ensure that someone who is obviously trying to fuck with the group via his character concept gets his quotient of fun. The guy with the bizarro character is being a cocksmock, why cater to him?

Why are you automatically assuming a person that comes up with a potentially unsuitable character is a cocksmock?

It does happen. But that's not the only reason. In 27 years, I've seen all kinds of situations come up that have nothing to do with that. What if it's a misunderstanding? Or what if it's not, but the person needs a hand?

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhy are you automatically assuming a person that comes up with a potentially unsuitable character is a cocksmock?

You're that guy, aren't you? :keke:

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhy are you automatically assuming a person that comes up with a potentially unsuitable character is a cocksmock?

It does happen. But that's not the only reason. In 27 years, I've seen all kinds of situations come up that have nothing to do with that. What if it's a misunderstanding? Or what if it's not, but the person needs a hand?

I won't argue that misunderstandings occur or that new players may need some help in figuring out a suitable character concept for a genre. IMHO, there is a type of player who enjoys playing "Odd Man Out" characters - the player is more a benign form of the Fishmalk, but can still be an annoyance to the GM and the other players.

When you take a player who has had years of experience with the game being played, knows the parameters of the genre the game is set in, then proceeds to create a character who deliberately doesn't fit in - the player is being a cocksmock. Usually the bizarro character concept isn't told to the GM beforehand, but sprung on him on game night.

(I've got an anecdote about a guy who did this in a Star Wars game of mine. The group had chosen to be Rebels, except for this one guy, who informed the group on our first game night that he was an Imperial spy and was going to turn in the rest of the players for the reward. The rest of the group killed his character as their first group action in-game. I allowed it, even though the players used knowledge that their characters didn't have, because it was the most efficient way to get rid of what was likely to become a troublesome player.)

Are there exceptions? Yes, these usually involve the player taking the GM aside and explaining why they wish to play the Odd Man Out which, after some GM-Player negotiation, works for the game. That is the exception though, and not the rule. IMHO YMMV, et al.

The bigger issue is that the GM is responsible for the ENTIRE group's fun. He's the one who is mainly concerned with that.

Each player is obviously concerned with his own fun, and often his concept of his own fun is one that you end up realizing would damage the possibility for fun for the rest of the group. He might think its really "fun" to have a character who's better at everything than everyone else in the group, but that will pretty well fuck it up for several of the other players.

So letting the Players have the fun they initially envision is not the name of the game. The point is to actually help the players see in what way they can have fun and fit into the play group and the campaign concept.

Besides that, there is also the problem of players having an initial character concept that they imagine will be "fun" (I want to play a guy who can't communicate at all with the other characters! I want to play a guy who's a total pacifist! I want to play a guy who's a two-dimensional stereotype I find momentarily funny!) that you realize will stop being fun after the initial amusement wears out. It then becomes your responsibility as a GM to either help to modify this initial concept or suggest an alternate idea that might end up being more practical for the long term.

RPGPundit