TheRPGSite

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

Quote from: RPGPunditBesides 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

Or, if they won't work with you on a good compromise, you could just give them the boot and tell them to go get their non-conformist amusement elsewhere, and that approach works for me.

I'm also not sure if I entirely buy the idea that the GM is responsible for the group's fun. I'd buy that the GM is responsible for creating the opportunity for the group to have fun, though. But I'm being nit-picky on that one.

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

I've GMed that way, and it can work.  However, it is not the only way to GM.  You can also take responsibility for some things and delegate responsibility for others.

Players are smart cookies ... indeed, many of them also GM other games, which means they're smart enough to be a GM.  Expecting them to take on part of the responsibility for making the game fun isn't really that big a deal.

There are many, many ways that people can organize themselves when they get together to have fun.  The viking hat isn't the only model that works.

Quote from: TonyLBWow, 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!

Amazingly, I am not psychic, and therefore must go on the account you give of yourself.

Based on the account in the original post, you'd be a failure as a GM.

Also notice the "'d" rather than "'re". That "'d" is a contraction of "would", which indicates a conditional. If you take this attitude then you'll be a failure.

Whether you're accurately or precisely describing your GMing style in detail I've no idea. We can only go on what you tell us.

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

There's a whole wide field of play between those two. It's not either/or. We can have,

• vetoing characters
• suggesting characters
• giving rewards for certain types of characters
• dropping hints in play
• vetoing things in play
• giving opportunities, but not making them clear, the players have to be smart to notice
• giving opportunities and making them explicit and obvious
• noticing one player is being talked over by others and interrupting to give the player a chance to speak up
• handing around a "talking stick", if you're not holding it you can't speak
• etc

There are a wide variety of styles between "it's not my job" and "railroading" or "the GM is responsible for everything."

Your original post describes your GMing style as being at one extreme, passively letting players do whatever crazy, game-wrecking thing they come up with, without any suggestions or commands or interference or help from the GM or any other player, and with you as GM being indifferent to their being bored or happy. Like all extremes, that's a fucked-up way of doing things.

If that's actually your GMing style, that's crap. I suspect it isn't, but again we can only go on what you've posted.

Quote from: walkerpStarting 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.

No. Because a sensible GM will be... sensible. That is, their sense work, they can look and see what people are enjoying or not enjoying and respond to that. For example, last week I began an espionage game, and one player had his character's first act on arriving at the new office be decorating the tea room. Now, this was stupid, but everyone was enjoying themselves talking and laughing, so why would I interfere? However, I also knew that at least two of the players had complained about previous games with other GMs where, "we never got anything done." So after half an hour or so of this goofing around, I said, "okay, the boss comes along with the mission."

Being sensible, I combined responding to the moment (them enjoying goofing around) with responding to their expressed wishes (them saying they didn't want too much goofing around). For my personal taste, there was too much goofing around - but every one of the player said afterwards the balance was perfect.

Had even one of the players been bored stupid by the tearoom goofing around, I'd have moved them along much more quickly.

Only a spastic thalidomide baby of a GM would just say, "I know what's fun, and you're going to get it whether you like it or not." A sensible GM combines responding to the moment with responding to the players' expressed wishes, bearing in mind that the GM is a player as well.

The GM is definitely responsible for the players' fun, just as the players are responsible for the fun of other players and the GM. Ideally, each player will be responding to the moment and to expressed wishes in that way. In practice, players do it unconsciously, while the GM - having an overview of the campaign as a whole - does it consciously. And obviously, some people are better at that kind of responsiveness than others.

Those who don't respond to the moment and the expressed wishes of others find themselves without a game group, or with players leaving. Three out of four of my players are refugees from game groups where the GM didn't listen to them, and didn't feel responsible for their fun. And it's certainly not the first lot of such players I've known.

Again, I emphasise, this isn't just about the GM. At the game table, everyone is responsible for everyone's fun. It's a game group, after all. It's just that because the GM controls the game world, the rules, and can easily control the pace of the game, the GM has special responsibility for everyone's fun.

Quote from: jeffI 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?

I didn't say you should. In fact,

Quote from: Kyle Aaronit's time for the GM to lay the old smackdown on that character concept, because it'll fuck things up.

Veto power, baby. It's a campaign-saver.

Quote from: Serious PaulYou're that guy, aren't you? :keke:

It has happened to me a few times, yeah. As a matter of fact, it happened recently :p

Wasn't my fault nor the DM. We just didn't have time for a complete briefing before I was included in what was a long-running campaign.

We found ways around it for the first game, and after that I reworked the character completely, including some class changes, alignment, etc...

Quote from: Kyle AaronVeto power, baby. It's a campaign-saver.

I agree completely (my misunderstanding of you earlier). There just seems to be a lot of angst surrounding the use of that power by a GM when you read about it on forums.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYour original post describes your GMing style as being at one extreme, passively letting players do whatever crazy, game-wrecking thing they come up with, without any suggestions or commands or interference or help from the GM or any other player, and with you as GM being indifferent to their being bored or happy.

You boldly asserting that doesn't make it true.  Here's my original post:

Quote from: TonyLBI 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."

I say you chose to come in and read an extreme position into that where none existed.

Like, we're both somewhere on some sort of spectrum, but I'm a bit to the north of you, so you say "You idiot!  You're going to freeze to death, unless you're eaten by polar bears first!"  When I say "Uh ... it hardly even snows where I am" you respond "Well, I can only go on what you posted, and your post clearly indicates that you live at the north pole, because it is to the north of me."

For entertainment value, I will now respond to your argument as if it were at a far distant extreme suggested by the direction of our apparent difference in styles:

   Why do you even bother inviting people in to play?  If you're going to veto their every move until they get the precise wording that you think their characters should say, you'd be better off just writing fiction like you clearly wish you could, rather than dragging your friends into your little dictatorial wank-fest.  Why not be honest and just give them the characters that you intend them to play, since you're clearly going to veto anything other than your preconceived notions.  And for pete's sake, why don't you at least allow them to wear the clothes they want, rather than vetoing their choice of dress and sending them home to choose something else twenty times a session?  No wonder you're not playing or GMing any games, with an attitude like that!  You're obviously a failure as a GM!"Well that was fun.  I don't think we'd have a very productive discussion if we went back and forth like that.  An off-topic spoof thread of that kind of stuff might be good for laughs though.  You wanna? :D

I've had a few players exhibit the whole "you gotta twist my arm to get me into the adventure" syndrome. I've had enough of that that I think it's fair to say it's shaped my GMing philosophy. I'm pretty pro-active in ensuring that the PCs have a motivation that is going to work with the adventure before I bless off their character concept.

Edit: In the realm of D&D, the lion's share of these sort of problems are forecast by one thing on the character sheet:

Alignment: Chaotic Neutral.

The problem is there's an entire generation of 90's era roleplayers that believe that players should work very closely with the GM when putting together characters, and that characters should be mostly developed before play begins.

Throw out both assumptions and you lose 90% of the negative issue of who is responsible for what fun. (The remaining 10% is having the players structured as a party/team and not independent operators out to screw each other over).

The GM is supposed to make the game fun, and has more responsibility to do this because they control environment and events. They make it fun by having interesting events and an interesting environment to provide an adventure playground type deal.

Players are supposed to make the game fun by being interesting and by working with other players. They have responsibility over playing and developing their one character.

You know, this is why I've become a massive convert to the idea of players creating their characters together, as a group, rather than going away and statting up their characters in isolation (with or without input from the GM). Most of the time, it simply eliminates unsuitable characters because the players can see straight off the bat what sort of concepts will work with the rest of the party and which won't, and can ditch the concepts that won't work before they get too emotionally invested in them.

Tony, I think there's an angle you're missing here. The assumption that you're making is that if one player isn't having fun, despite your best efforts to present a fun game (although that effort doesn't seem to extend to saying "er, dude, you can play that character if you really want to but you might want to think about how he/she is going to actually engage with the campaign"), then it's not your problem - and there seems to be an unstated assumption that it isn't the other player's problem either.

Which, you know, would work fine if you were running an MMORPG, the players who were having fun could band together and ignore the people who weren't having fun, and the people who weren't having fun would just log off after five minutes and cancel the 14-day free trial. But you're running tabletop RPGs here, and in that context the people who aren't having fun aren't isolated from the people who are. On an OOC level, hanging around someone who is bored and unhappy is kind of likely to make other people unhappy in turn; it's a bummer to glance over and see Joe or Bob doodling on their character sheet and sighing to themselves. It can really wreck the mood if one person isn't enjoying themselves; even if they are being scrupulously polite, it's actually quite difficult for some people to completely suppress their body language or to feign enjoyment.

And on an IC level, bored players tend to become disruptive players - not out of malice, often simply out of attempts to be proactive and "make their own fun" - but it gets disruptive when "their own fun" trips up the fun of other players, or is otherwise inappropriate for the campaign in question. I know a guy who's always an asset to any game he's in, unless the GM allows him to get bored; then he'll start IC conflicts with the other PCs, simply so that there'll be something he's interested in happening in the game (normally political/social conflicts as opposes to stealing and fighting, he's not a sociopath). Which is cool if the player of the PC he's decided to have his PC antagonise is also bored or generally up for an IC scrap, but is disruptive if they're not into intra-character conflict or if they're invested enough in other aspects of the game that the PC-vs-PC conflict is an unwanted distraction.

If a player is genuinely not having fun in a campaign, that's everybody's problem, because on some level - OOC or IC - everyone's going to feel the effects of that.

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 guess I'm fortunate that my players have never come to me with a character concept. In fact, I'd never heard of such a thing until I started reading RPGnet a few years ago.

My players just make up whatever PC they want at the table before we start our session. They don't consult with me or have a grand design in mind.

Quote from: WarthurBut you're running tabletop RPGs here, and in that context the people who aren't having fun aren't isolated from the people who are. On an OOC level, hanging around someone who is bored and unhappy is kind of likely to make other people unhappy in turn; it's a bummer to glance over and see Joe or Bob doodling on their character sheet and sighing to themselves.

Yeah, I know what you mean ... but ...

Isn't the ability for Joe to infect me with his unhappiness based, at least in part, on my believing that Joe's unhappiness is something I'm responsible for?  I mean, I get what you're saying, but can you see what I'm saying when I point out that a lot of this is a feedback loop:

• Because I believe I'm responsible for Joe's happiness, I am unhappy when he's unhappy
• Because I'm unhappy when Joe's unhappy, I believe I have to take responsibility for his happiness

Now, naturally, this is a question of more-or-less ... because human beings do respond to each other.  We're social animals.  So it's not like you're just going to turn off either of these factors.  But there's degrees and degrees of gray area between the two extremes of complete sociopathy (where Joe makes no impact on me at all) and utter codependence (where I cannot separate Joe's feelings from my own).  Taking on more responsibility for Joe will tend to make me more invested in Joe and his happiness.  Taking on less responsibility will tend to make me less invested.  Make sense?

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."

Here's a slightly different assertion: You can't ensure others have fun.

I, too, learned this (among other things) and have had smoother sailing since. Which isn't to say that I don't want everyone to have fun at the table or that I don't try to encourage it. But at the end of the day, each individual will determine what he or she will get out of the game  - they make love it no matter what, they might hate it no matter what, but the choice is always theirs.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's a slightly different assertion: You can't ensure others have fun.

Yeah, that too :D

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's a slightly different assertion: You can't ensure others have fun.

Very true.

You know, after some of the back and forth in this thread, I think the compromise position is that everyone at the table is responsible, in part, for everyone else's fun. GMs make interesting settings and situations. Players make characters that fit in the setting and work well in the campaign. GMs look to the players' interests to provide hooks and players do their best to take those hooks and run with them. It is a give and take for everyone at the table... I am having fun when I am facilitating your fun.

Quote from: cmagounYou know, after some of the back and forth in this thread, I think the compromise position is that everyone at the table is responsible, in part, for everyone else's fun.

Well, I'd put it slightly differently.  Big surprise, huh? :D

I think that there's a big difference in viewpoint between saying "My job is to provide X, Y and Z ... and incidentally those things are well chosen to help everyone at the table have fun" and saying "My job is to care about people and help them have fun ... and my tools are providing X, Y and Z."

So I agree with everyone at the table being responsible for things that (often) happen to contribute to each other's fun.  But in my personal style, I don't go with the whole "I'm partly responsible for your fun" bit.

Does that make sense as a distinction?

You can lead a nerd to Cheetos, but you can't make him eat.

I see the GM as a leadership position; the GM is responsible for setting direction and providing a framework for everyone to play within.

I believe everyone at the table is responsible for supporting the team and the team goals -- that is, everyone has a good time.

In general,if the GM (or anyone) is having to make a heroic effort to meet that goal, something's not right.

But from my perspective if anyone at the table isn't having fun everyone fails.

What this means, with respect to characters that don't seem to fit, is that everyone involved is 100% responsible for everyone having fun. As a player, if I make a character that is hard to fit in, I'm responsible for making sure that I find a way to have fun with my character (or change him). As the GM, if someone makes a character that seems difficult to fit in, I'm 100% responsible for accommodating that character in a way that still means I'm having fun (meaning that the game fiction works and it's not too much trouble for me).

Generally, I don't find it that difficult to find a way for everyone to enjoy a game. If it's a chronic issue, I'd say it's likely that someone (or someones) are failing to support the team.

An example of that failure would be someone saying, "It's not my problem."

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's not Game Non-Judgmental Recommender, Anarcho-Syndacalist Co-Ordinator, it's Game Master

Can I use this for my sig? please??

Allen

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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

QFT.

There are people who just seem to want to play characters for their own amusement and just don't care what it does to the other players and their fun. One example I ran into in Mutants and Masterminds: a character who not only avoided any type of directly offensive ability but gave his character Posession so he could take over OTHER player characters and use THEIR offensive abilities rather than risk his own character! And sometimes he would intervene to keep others from getting "hurt" in combat by basically preventing them from fighting at all, even if they wanted to..and this included the group's main "tank"!

I got really sick of that fast and finally banished the guy completely..it was totally ruining the game.

Allen

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, I know what you mean ... but ...

Isn't the ability for Joe to infect me with his unhappiness based, at least in part, on my believing that Joe's unhappiness is something I'm responsible for?

No. Well, maybe, if you were autistic, sociopathic, or just extremely socially inept.

I'm not trying to be harsh here; human beings pick up on each other's moods. It's called "empathy". We are affected by the current mood of the people around us whether we like it or not. Have you ever noticed how you tend to laugh more when you're watching a comedy movie at the cinema than you would if you were alone at home? It's because when you're in a room full of other people laughing, you're more inclined to laugh yourself.

Maybe you honestly wouldn't care if Joe felt down, but guess what: if you don't give a shit whether or not he's happy, you are not his friend. Friends have an emotional investment in each other's well-being or you can't describe them as friends at all. Furthermore, unless you're actually an enormous misanthrope, you're probably going to feel a certain amount of empathy with him even if you only met five minutes ago; again, it plain sucks to be around unhappy people. Even if he's not your friend, but some guy your other gaming buddies brought along, and even if you are callous enough that a stranger being bored or unhappy has absolutely no impact on you, it's surely going to impact on those players who are his friends. Or are you not friends with any of your players? If so, I can honestly say that I pity you.

QuoteBut there's degrees and degrees of gray area between the two extremes of complete sociopathy (where Joe makes no impact on me at all) and utter codependence (where I cannot separate Joe's feelings from my own).  Taking on more responsibility for Joe will tend to make me more invested in Joe and his happiness.  Taking on less responsibility will tend to make me less invested.  Make sense?

Here comes some logic.

- According to you, your responsibility is to provide a good game.
- By default, you are not a sociopath, your players are not sociopaths. Therefore, by your own admission, Joe's mood has at least some impact on you and the rest of your players.
- If Joe is bored and unhappy, therefore, that is going to have a negative impact on you, whether or not you actually "took responsibility" for his happiness.
- This negative impact is going to undermine the quality of your game, and therefore make it less good.
- Therefore, you have a responsibility to avoid this negative impact, because it undermines your primary goal.
- Therefore, you have a responsibility to care about Joe's fun, as well as Sue's fun, Larry's fun, Amy's fun, and your own. Everybody has a certain responsibility towards everybody else's fun.

Quote from: WarthurNo. Well, maybe, if you were autistic, sociopathic, or just extremely socially inept.

Well you're a charmer, aren't you.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that there's a big difference in viewpoint between saying "My job is to provide X, Y and Z ... and incidentally those things are well chosen to help everyone at the table have fun" and saying "My job is to care about people and help them have fun ... and my tools are providing X, Y and Z."

So I agree with everyone at the table being responsible for things that (often) happen to contribute to each other's fun.  But in my personal style, I don't go with the whole "I'm partly responsible for your fun" bit.

There's two really compelling problems with your view - which I assume corresponds to the first example you give. Firstly, if you just do stuff that you find fun and don't give much thought to whether the players are going to enjoy it or not their enjoyment of your game more or less becomes a matter of chance. Maybe you'll throw out something that the players will enjoy, maybe it'll be a wash, but if you haven't been prioritising their enjoyment who's to say which will happen?

Secondly, even if you run reasonably sandboxy games where the players can proactively create their own fun, with the stated attitude you run the risk of accidentally trampling all over the players' fun; you're throwing out X, Y, and Z, but the way you've set them up means that A, B, and C that the players have been working on end up undermined, rendered irrelevant, or otherwise destroyed. For example, if the players have been seriously getting into political intrigue at court, and then you have a sudden plague kill the entire aristocracy of their home nation while the PCs are off on a hunting trip because you decided the game needed more exploration of postapocalyptic wastes, that fucking sucks.

I know of several GMs who find overbearing, vocal NPCs, ramrod-linear plotlines, and all sorts of other opportunities for them to grandstand and show off how awesome they are to be very, very fun indeed; if they took the attitude you're advocating they would run incredibly shitty games.

Quote from: TonyLBWell you're a charmer, aren't you.

Dude, in the very post I was replying to you pointed out that only sociopaths are actually totally unaffected by the moods of people around them.

This is the first time I have ever offended anyone by agreeing with them. I'm actually kind of proud.

Quote from: WarthurDude, in the very post I was replying to you pointed out that only sociopaths are actually totally unaffected by the moods of people around them.

This is the first time I have ever offended anyone by agreeing with them. I'm actually kind of proud.

Well, you "agreed" with a more extreme position than the one I espoused.

I said "Isn't feeling responsible for somebody's happiness at least part of this issue?"

And you said "NO!  It is no part whatsoever, unless you are autistic, sociopathic or asocial."

You still serious about that?  Or are you down with the idea that there's some middle ground where people can be more or less effected, depending on circumstance?

Quote from: WarthurFirstly, if you just do stuff that you find fun and don't give much thought to whether the players are going to enjoy it or not their enjoyment of your game more or less becomes a matter of chance.

Oh noes! :eek:

Oh ... wait ... no, that's actually okay.  They're big boys and girls.  They can take care of themselves.

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, even if you run reasonably sandboxy games where the players can proactively create their own fun, with the stated attitude you run the risk of accidentally trampling all over the players' fun

Oh noes! :eek:

Oh ... wait ... no, that's actually okay too.  If I'm doing my best to provide good stuff for the game, and it turns out not to be the perfect stuff ... well, nobody's perfect.  As I'm not trying to hold myself to a standard of being perfect (and being responsible for everything) that doesn't actually bug me.  I did my job, it didn't work out, we'll probably all have a chat as a group about how we can have more fun in future.  It's not the end of the world, and it's nothing we can't fix.

I'm saying that whether or not you beat yourself up about not entertaining Joe, Joe being unhappy still sucks for everyone. For the other players, it pretty much sucks the same whether or not you care. For the GM perspective, I think the primary source of suck is always going to be the fact that one of the players is bored or unhappy, whether or not the GM is beating himself up inside because he failed at a task (keeping everyone entertained) that he set himself. (And not every GM is going to beat themselves up over that sort of thing - I certainly don't). Saying "I'm no longer going to emotionally invest in whether or not my players have fun" - which is essentially what you're saying there - is treating a minor symptom but doesn't cure the problem at all. The major problem - which, by itself, is more than sufficient to turn a good game into a bad game - is that a player feels left out, neglected, bored, or otherwise unhappy, and it's that problem you need to address, because if you don't your game may be wrecked.

I never saw a campaign fail because the GM cared too much.

Quote from: WarthurI'm saying that whether or not you beat yourself up about not entertaining Joe, Joe being unhappy still sucks for everyone.

Very true.

Quote from: WarthurFor the other players, it pretty much sucks the same whether or not you care.

Also very true ... though it may suck more or less depending on how much they feel responsible for Joe's happiness.

Quote from: WarthurSaying "I'm no longer going to emotionally invest in whether or not my players have fun" - which is essentially what you're saying there - is treating a minor symptom but doesn't cure the problem at all.

It treats part of the problem.

Quote from: WarthurThe major problem - which, by itself, is more than sufficient to turn a good game into a bad game - is that a player feels left out, neglected, bored, or otherwise unhappy, and it's that problem you need to address, because if you don't your game may be wrecked.

But then again, if you don't treat it then Joe may figure out that he's not going to have somebody bail him out of the problem, and be prompted to fix it himself.  No guarantees ... but then there aren't any guarantees the other way, either.

Quote from: WarthurI never saw a campaign fail because the GM cared too much.

Oh, I have.  The GM burns out, and then he flip-flops all the way into not giving a damn about anything in the game, since nothing he can do is good enough, and then the whole thing goes straight down the crapper.  If you've never seen it ... well then, that's your good fortune.  Me, I've become aware that GM energy is a finite resource, and I'd like to invest it in things that create more GM energy ... like the GM having fun.

Quote from: TonyLBOh noes! :eek:

Oh ... wait ... no, that's actually okay.  They're big boys and girls.  They can take care of themselves.

QuoteOh noes! :eek:

Oh ... wait ... no, that's actually okay too.  If I'm doing my best to provide good stuff for the game, and it turns out not to be the perfect stuff ... well, nobody's perfect.

I'm not talking about "not perfect", I'm talking about "actively disruptive to the fun of others". There is a distinction.

QuoteAs I'm not trying to hold myself to a standard of being perfect (and being responsible for everything) that doesn't actually bug me.

The sands are shifting. The straw men are here, and they are running away with the goalposts. You've turned "I am responsible for ensuring that everybody is enjoying the game" into "I am responsible for ensuring that my game is PERFECT! and if I fail to do that then I should feel bad about myself."

It sounds to me as if you're taking this tough "you take care of yourself and I'll take care of myself, bitches" attitude because you actually take it quite badly when you don't quite match the standard you've set for yourself, so you want to protect yourself by effectively not setting any standards for yourself - or at least, none that people other than yourself can assess. So long as you enjoy the game, you're in the clear: if the others didn't, it's no skin off your nose, and you can't be held accountable for that (even if their lack of enjoyment was down to your GMing decisions).

I see no way in which washing your hands of any responsibility for other people's experience of your games is going to help you run better games; in fact, it's my opinion that it'll make it significantly more likely that you'll run bad ones. If you find yourself nervous and angst-ridden because of the burden of responsibility the solution is to work on your self-confidence and ability to accept failure, not to run and hide.

Quote from: WarthurIt sounds to me as if you're taking this tough "you take care of yourself and I'll take care of myself, bitches" attitude because you actually take it quite badly when you don't quite match the standard you've set for yourself

Oh, totally!  When I go into a game saying "I will only be successful if I assure that everyone has fun," then I take it pretty hard when someone doesn't have fun.  I mean ... failure!  That sucks. :mad:

Quote from: Warthurso you want to protect yourself by effectively not setting any standards for yourself - or at least, none that people other than yourself can assess.

No ... just a standard that I can unilaterally live up to.  One that I can make happen through my own efforts, every single time, no matter what anyone else does.

I got no problem with other people being able to assess it.  "Present a well-thought out world and an adventure with plenty of action and meaty dramatic hooks" is something I can do ... as well as something that people can judge me on.  But "Make people have fun" is not a goal that I have control over ... way too many external variables.

Quote from: WarthurIf you find yourself nervous and angst-ridden because of the burden of responsibility the solution is to work on your self-confidence and ability to accept failure, not to run and hide.

I'm gonna share this quote around with my friends, if you don't mind.  They'll be quite horrified at the prospect of me building more self-confidence :D

The whole "ability to accept failure" thing?  Eh.  I'm a perfectionist.  I can either try to adjust that thing about myself, or I can set goals that I can drive that energy into productively.  I choose the latter.

Quote from: TonyLBAlso very true ... though it may suck more or less depending on how much they feel responsible for Joe's happiness.

Again, if they are genuinely Joe's friends then "Joe is unhappy" is going to be the overriding concern, and "it's my fault" will be at best a secondary issue.

QuoteIt treats part of the problem.

But if you work on helping Joe than you can solve the entire problem. You are treating a minor symptom while ignoring a major disease; you're like a doctor who gives his patient aspirin and a pat on the head while ignoring the patient's rotting, gangrenous arm.

QuoteBut then again, if you don't treat it then Joe may figure out that he's not going to have somebody bail him out of the problem, and be prompted to fix it himself.  No guarantees ... but then there aren't any guarantees the other way, either.

That's cool, but you're running the risk that Joe's solution might end up being disruptive to Sue or Amy's fun - perhaps through no fault of his own. Maybe he's bored because the campaign has less combat than he was hoping for, and so he takes some of the party's hired goons and shakes down a local mafia hangout. Soon enough the party's locked in a gang war with the mafia that nobody except Joe wanted, and which could well end up disrupting (or putting entirely on hold) the delicate political power-plays that Sue and Amy were really enjoying.

QuoteOh, I have.  The GM burns out, and then he flip-flops all the way into not giving a damn about anything in the game, since nothing he can do is good enough, and then the whole thing goes straight down the crapper.

I wouldn't describe that as "caring too much" so much as "caring in the wrong way". It is possible to have an emotional and intellectual investment in a game without taking it personally when things go wrong.

I would also point out that your case is an extreme of an extreme: there are other, lesser forms of burnout which are equally destructive. Sure, if the GM doesn't care about anything anymore the game will go to Sucksville the quickest. But if the GM stops caring about the rules, and simply comes up with arbitrary, contradictory rulings on an ad-hoc basis, it's going to suck... and if the GM stops caring about the setting, and ceases to put any effort into making it at all interesting or believable, it's going to suck... and if the GM stops caring about the PCs, and never engages with their backgrounds or priorities, it's going to suck... and if the GM stops caring about the players' enjoyment... well, you get the drift.

QuoteIf you've never seen it ... well then, that's your good fortune.  Me, I've become aware that GM energy is a finite resource, and I'd like to invest it in things that create more GM energy ... like the GM having fun.

Which saps more energy?

a) Saying "Sorry Joe, but that character concept really isn't suitable for the campaign because of X... but hey, Y and Z look good, so why don't you hold onto those and tweak the idea a little?"

b) Letting Joe's character into the game, having Joe sit there with a black cloud over his head for most of the game, and then potentially dealing with (intentionally or accidentally) disruptive behaviour on the part of Joe when he gets the message and decides to make his own fun without any regard for the fun of others (as you think he should do).

a) is piss-easy. b) means that the problem drags on and on, undermining everybody's good time and dampening the mood, until it is either resolved halfway through the game (and it's always more difficult to make changes partway through a game than it is at the beginning) or it causes piss and mayhem.

Put it this way, Tony: to me, approving someone's PC for your campaign is a promise made between GM and player. The player says "Hey, GM, are you cool with this PC?" If the GM says "Yeah, sure," they're basically saying "This character is an acceptable addition to the campaign, and I will give them as much chance to shine as every other PCs." If you, as GM, then turn around and don't cater to my PC at all, even though you accepted him into the game without caveat or complaint, you're breaking that promise.

And that makes you a bad GM.

Quote from: TonyLBOh, totally!  When I go into a game saying "I will only be successful if I assure that everyone has fun," then I take it pretty hard when someone doesn't have fun.  I mean ... failure!  That sucks. :mad:

I honestly don't know whether you're being sarcastic here.

QuoteNo ... just a standard that I can unilaterally live up to.  One that I can make happen through my own efforts, every single time, no matter what anyone else does.

I see. Your big plan for becoming a better GM is to pick goals which you can consistently and reliably meet without ever stretching yourself.

QuoteI got no problem with other people being able to assess it.  "Present a well-thought out world and an adventure with plenty of action and meaty dramatic hooks" is something I can do ... as well as something that people can judge me on.  But "Make people have fun" is not a goal that I have control over ... way too many external variables.

You don't have complete control over it, but throwing up your hands and saying "I can't control all the variables, therefore there's nothing I can do!" is a silly overreaction. It's all a matter of communication skills; surely you can see that the better you are at soliciting feedback from your players, finding out their preferences, and reading their moods, the better you will be at helping them enjoy your game?

QuoteI'm gonna share this quote around with my friends, if you don't mind.  They'll be quite horrified at the prospect of me building more self-confidence :D

I wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "self-confidence" if you're honestly not bothered about whether or not people enjoy your games. To be frank with you, I'd say it's arrogance. I know a few too many people who think they are exhibiting one when really they're indulging in the other, and it's never pleasant to see.

QuoteThe whole "ability to accept failure" thing?  Eh.  I'm a perfectionist.  I can either try to adjust that thing about myself, or I can set goals that I can drive that energy into productively.  I choose the latter.

Out of interest, what "things about yourself" do you think are likely to stop people enjoying your games?

Quote from: WarthurBut if you work on helping Joe than you can solve the entire problem. You are treating a minor symptom while ignoring a major disease; you're like a doctor who gives his patient aspirin and a pat on the head while ignoring the patient's rotting, gangrenous arm.

More like the doctor who gives his patient aspirin and a pat on the head while ignoring the patient's rotting, toxic marriage.  Would couples counselling stop the guy's persistent headaches?  Quite possibly ... but that's well outside the doctor's job to even suggest (much less implement), so the doc provides aspirin and leaves the guy's marriage to him.

Not every problem at the game table has to be my problem to solve.  Sometimes the most important lesson of team-work is to know when to let your team-mates handle a problem themselves.

Quote from: WarthurPut it this way, Tony: to me, approving someone's PC for your campaign is a promise made between GM and player. The player says "Hey, GM, are you cool with this PC?" If the GM says "Yeah, sure," they're basically saying "This character is an acceptable addition to the campaign, and I will give them as much chance to shine as every other PCs." If you, as GM, then turn around and don't cater to my PC at all, even though you accepted him into the game without caveat or complaint, you're breaking that promise.

And that makes you a bad GM.

What's this got to do with anything I've been saying?

I can cater to somebody's character without being responsible for their happiness.  I do it all the time.  "Dryzz't, totally-not-a-Drizz't-clone, the dual-wielding drow" is a perfectly acceptable addition to my campaign, and I will give him as much chance to shine as every other PC.  I don't, personally, think there's a chance in hell that he'll benefit from those opportunities, but that's Joe's problem, not mine.

As I've said now several times, I conceive of my job as giving people the opportunities, not making sure that they capitalize on them.  Dunno why you're accusing me of not giving people any opportunities ... it flies in the face of exactly what I've said about my own style.

Quote from: WarthurI honestly don't know whether you're being sarcastic here.

Nope.  God's honest, etc.

Quote from: WarthurI see. Your big plan for becoming a better GM is to pick goals which you can consistently and reliably meet without ever stretching yourself.

Heh.  Not what I said.  How do I know that?  Because it's not what I think.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble hearing what's actually being said, rather than some more extreme and ridiculous version that you'd rather argue against.  You might want to try reading more closely.

Quote from: WarthurI wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "self-confidence" if you're honestly not bothered about whether or not people enjoy your games. To be frank with you, I'd say it's arrogance.

Heh.  "I'm sensual, you're kinky, he's perverted."  On the one hand you're telling me that I need more self-confidence, so that I can brush off problems ... on the other hand, you're telling me that if I brush off one particular problem it's not self-confidence, it's arrogance.  Whatever, man.  That's why I was saying I'm gonna relay this to my friends.  They're in a position to judge whether I need more self-confidence.  I think this'll give 'em a laugh.

Quote from: TonyLBMore like the doctor who gives his patient aspirin and a pat on the head while ignoring the patient's rotting, toxic marriage.  Would couples counselling stop the guy's persistent headaches?  Quite possibly ... but that's well outside the doctor's job to even suggest (much less implement), so the doc provides aspirin and leaves the guy's marriage to him.

But the guy is married to the doctor, and everyone else in the doctor's waiting room (the other players)...

QuoteNot every problem at the game table has to be my problem to solve.  Sometimes the most important lesson of team-work is to know when to let your team-mates handle a problem themselves.

You seem to be going further than that and not even offering help in the first place.

QuoteWhat's this got to do with anything I've been saying?

Shit, Tony, I don't know, it's almost as if you started the thread with an example of someone presenting you with an inappropriate PC for the campaign, and with you saying that with this newfound attitude of yours you'd just let them play the PC and learn the hard way that the dude's inappropriate. I have absolutely no idea how I managed to form that idea, because hey, check out post #1, there's nothing at all like that there.

QuoteAs I've said now several times, I conceive of my job as giving people the opportunities, not making sure that they capitalize on them.  Dunno why you're accusing me of not giving people any opportunities ... it flies in the face of exactly what I've said about my own style.

Because giving people opportunities which are wildly inappropriate for their character (or, to put it another way, which their characters are wildly inappropriate for) is just as bad as giving them no opportunities at all. It's not just a matter of giving everyone a more-or-less even number of opportunities, it's also an issue of making sure every PC gets a certain number of opportunities which engage with their character concept. If you accept a combat-focused character in your campaign then there'd better be a significant amount of combat in that campaign, because all the political shenanigans or metaphysical puzzles in the world are going to amount to a big heap of nothing for that PC.

Quote from: TonyLBYou seem to have a great deal of trouble hearing what's actually being said, rather than some more extreme and ridiculous version that you'd rather argue against.  You might want to try reading more closely.

Here's your "it's not my problem, it's yours" attitude coming into play again.

Fine, maybe I was engaging in hyperbole, but can't you see that you're effectively saying "here is an entire subset of GMing skills which many people consider important which I am not at all interested in developing myself" when you no longer make helping the players enjoy your game a priority? And doesn't neglecting that whole side of things make you a poorer GM?

QuoteHeh.  "I'm sensual, you're kinky, he's perverted."  On the one hand you're telling me that I need more self-confidence, so that I can brush off problems ... on the other hand, you're telling me that if I brush off one particular problem it's not self-confidence, it's arrogance.

Because you're not brushing off a problem, you're brushing off a person. Can you see how this makes you a dick?

Quote from: WarthurBecause you're not brushing off a problem, you're brushing off a person. Can you see how this makes you a dick?

Wow ... melodramatic much?

Guy sitting at my table not having a good opportunity to use his character in my game is not heart-break and tragedy.  It's a game.  If I let him make his own way with that I'm not brushing him off as a person ... I'm just not making his problem with the game my problem.

I have friends come to me for support and encouragement with real troubles.  Financial tangles, romantic worries, job troubles, family troubles.  I can tell the difference between that and "My ninja-stripper hardly ever gets to use her Perform skill!"  Can't you?

Quote from: cmagounYou know, after some of the back and forth in this thread, I think the compromise position is that everyone at the table is responsible, in part, for everyone else's fun.

I agree with that in a way. The problem with things as stated, as far as I can see, is that you can't really have responsibility without power. You can't be responsible for someone else's fun unless you have the power to make them have fun.

What I would say, however, is that gaming works best when everyone at the table - GM and players alike - have a shared goal, fun, and everyone at the table works to see that everyone is getting the rewards that result from said goal.

Seanchai

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... melodramatic much?

Guy sitting at my table not having a good opportunity to use his character in my game is not heart-break and tragedy.  It's a game.  If I let him make his own way with that I'm not brushing him off as a person ... I'm just not making his problem with the game my problem.

Even though you've not given him the sort of opportunities he was looking for in the game when he designed that character, and which you tacitly promised would be present when you accepted that character? Come on.

QuoteI have friends come to me for support and encouragement with real troubles.  Financial tangles, romantic worries, job troubles, family troubles.  I can tell the difference between that and "My ninja-stripper hardly ever gets to use her Perform skill!"  Can't you?

If the game isn't that important, doesn't it then follow that it really doesn't hurt to show them sufficient respect to make sure they are involved and enjoying themselves?

Quote from: WarthurEven though you've not given him the sort of opportunities he was looking for in the game when he designed that character, and which you tacitly promised would be present when you accepted that character? Come on.

Uh ... come on yourself.  If I say "Hey guys, we're gonna have a political campaign" and a guy comes to me with a combat-monster, what am I tacitly promising by accepting that character?  I already told him what kind of campaign it's gonna be ... he thinks he can make a go of it with a ninja-assassin-killer?  Who am I to say he can't?  Especially since, if he blows it, it's not my problem.

Quote from: WarthurIf the game isn't that important, doesn't it then follow that it really doesn't hurt to show them sufficient respect to make sure they are involved and enjoying themselves?

I never said it would hurt.  I said it's not my job, not my responsibility, not my problem.

That puts me in a position where, if I see something that will help someone have fun, I can do it if I feel like doing it, and not do it if I don't.  If I perceive that Megan will have fun if I introduce a nemesis to dog her steps ... well, I'll probably feel like doing that.  Dogging people's steps is fun for me.

If I perceive that Joe will have fun if I introduce a love interest for him to seduce and ravish ... eh.  Maybe I don't feel like doing that today.  That's not me failing Joe as a GM, because his happiness is not my responsibility.

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... come on yourself.  If I say "Hey guys, we're gonna have a political campaign" and a guy comes to me with a combat-monster, what am I tacitly promising by accepting that character?

If you accept it without comment, you're effectively saying there's a place in the political campaign for a combat monster, because if there wasn't any reasonable GM would raise some kind of objection, or at least warn the player that the character was a poor fit.

QuoteI already told him what kind of campaign it's gonna be ... he thinks he can make a go of it with a ninja-assassin-killer?  Who am I to say he can't?  Especially since, if he blows it, it's not my problem.

Unless he actually wrecks the game in the course of blowing it (the assassin in a political game could very, very easily do that).

Quote from: TonyLBIf I perceive that Joe will have fun if I introduce a love interest for him to seduce and ravish ... eh.  Maybe I don't feel like doing that today.  That's not me failing Joe as a GM, because his happiness is not my responsibility.

Yes, but exactly when are you, as a GM, in a situation where a player is clearly bored or otherwise not having fun and you can only think of one way to engage the player's interest?

Quote from: WarthurI never saw a campaign fail because the GM cared too much.

I have. The DM (me) found that game nights were becoming something akin to being a substitute teacher for a grade 8 class, and shut down the game.

Quote from: WarthurIf you accept it without comment, you're effectively saying there's a place in the political campaign for a combat monster, because if there wasn't any reasonable GM would raise some kind of objection, or at least warn the player that the character was a poor fit.

Looks like circular reasoning to me.  Why would any reasonable GM raise that kind of objection, if not from a belief that it's his job to make sure the player doesn't make that kind of mistake?

I don't think that's my job.  My players know I feel that way.  Therefore, I'm clearly not promising that the character will be a good fit.  I'm saying that the job of making the character fit is not my job.

Besides ... surely the player can put two and two together and realize "Hey, this assassin's probably going to be a bit of a dicey fit for a political campaign."  I mean ... is Joe supposed to be stupid or something?

Quote from: SeanchaiI agree with that in a way. The problem with things as stated, as far as I can see, is that you can't really have responsibility without power. You can't be responsible for someone else's fun unless you have the power to make them have fun.

Generally, yes. Ultimately no, I cannot force someone else at the table to "have fun, dammit!!"  But I do understand what you are saying. Still when I say we are all responsible for each others' fun, I mean we do what we can to facilitate a fun game and avoid practices that get in the way of a fun game. Everyone in the game has this level of "power" over everyone else's fun. When I talk about these kinds of things with my players and friends, I call it Gaming Courtesy.

For instance, letting other player characters grab the spotlight is Gaming Courtesy. Hogging the spotlight and running roughshod over their scenes isn't.

Building your characters so that everyone has something cool about them is Gaming Courtesy. Building your guy in such a way that you entirely overshadow another PC isn't.

When you GM, giving your buddy an artifact while you dole out +1 Toothpicks of Backstabbing to other players isn't Gaming Courtesy.

Politely giving the GM feedback on his game and his rulings is Gaming Courtesy. Getting into a loud argument that grinds the game to a halt isn't.

But you know this already...

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat I would say, however, is that gaming works best when everyone at the table - GM and players alike - have a shared goal, fun, and everyone at the table works to see that everyone is getting the rewards that result from said goal.

Right and that is my point: The way you behave at the gaming table directly affects everyones' fun.

Which leaves me surprised that a lot of people bit Tony's head off. I didn't read it to mean "I don't give a crap about this guy's fun." I read it to mean "he needs to meet me halfway because we are BOTH responsible for his fun."

Pass the Cheetos!

Quote from: kregmosierYou can lead a nerd to Cheetos, but you can't make him eat.

Beautiful :)

Quote from: AllenshCan I use this for my sig? please??

Of course! Why do you people keep asking me that stuff? If it's put up on the internet, it's effectively public domain, whether you like it or not. Your words become free to all, and dedicated geeks having an argument with you will go digging and find something you said eight years ago.

Quote from: WarthurIf you find yourself nervous and angst-ridden because of the burden of responsibility the solution is to work on your self-confidence and ability to accept failure, not to run and hide.

Or as I would put, "Step on up and help out, and don't be a whiny wuss."

Wearing the Viking Hat is a privilige. You have to earn that by hard work, and being both responsible and responsive.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course! Why do you people keep asking me that stuff? If it's put up on the internet, it's effectively public domain, whether you like it or not.

They are paying you a compliment by doing that, so don't be a jackass about it. :D

Quote from: TonyLBLooks like circular reasoning to me.  Why would any reasonable GM raise that kind of objection, if not from a belief that it's his job to make sure the player doesn't make that kind of mistake?

Given that that mistake could fuck up the game for you and everyone else, I consider it highly unreasonable to blithely say it's not your responsibility.

If nothing else, it doesn't hurt at all to warn someone and then let them play the character if they really insist. But if you don't even warn them, even though the alarm bells are ringing? That's just assholery.

QuoteBesides ... surely the player can put two and two together and realize "Hey, this assassin's probably going to be a bit of a dicey fit for a political campaign."  I mean ... is Joe supposed to be stupid or something?

Of course. If somebody misinterprets the blurb you wrote for your campaign, it's not because you were ambiguous, it's because they're stupid. If somebody has a different definition of "political campaign" ("why, we'll need an assassin to take out our opponents!"), that's not a matter of people having different outlooks on the chosen genre and approach, it's because they're stupid. If a player fails to read your mind and realise that although you're nodding and saying "sure, you can play that character" you actually have grave reservations as to whether the character is useful, that's not down to you not making the slightest effort to communicate with your players, it's because they're stupid.

Quote from: WarthurIf a player fails to read your mind and realise that although you're nodding and saying "sure, you can play that character" you actually have grave reservations as to whether the character is useful, that's not down to you not making the slightest effort to communicate with your players, it's because they're stupid.

Hyperbole again.

Do you actually want to be having a conversation about this, or are you trying to win the internet?  Because, frankly, your social skills here suck if your goal is to have a conversation.

I think that communication between ye and me is actually impossible. We're speaking the same language but our outlooks and approaches and experiences are so different we may as well be from different planets.

Exactly how are you defining "responsibility" anyway?

Quote from: WarthurI think that communication between ye and me is actually impossible. We're speaking the same language but our outlooks and approaches and experiences are so different we may as well be from different planets.

Warthur, you don't know fuck-all about my outlook, approach or experience.  Nor, indeed, have you shown any interest.

You're arguing against some image in your head:  you're bitching out some imaginary guy who deliberately hinders communication, seeks out ways to ruin his own game, and basically sets out to do the worst job possible.

I don't know where that image comes from, but it sure as hell isn't me.

Quote from: TonyLBWarthur, you don't know fuck-all about my outlook, approach or experience.

I don't know what they're like, and I'm not claiming that I do, all I'm claiming is that they are very different from mine. I'm inferring this from that fact that we seem to be talking right past each other.

QuoteYou're arguing against some image in your head:  you're bitching out some imaginary guy who deliberately hinders communication, seeks out ways to ruin his own game, and basically sets out to do the worst job possible.

I don't know where that image comes from, but it sure as hell isn't me.

I am not saying you are deliberately hindering communication and undermining your game. What I am saying is that the unintentional effect of your declared new attitude is that it will hinder communication - you are saying that you're no longer going to be telling people when their character concepts seem inappropriate to you, right? - and therefore will threaten to make your game worse.

I'm voting for the excluded middle here.

On the one hand, I absolutely hate it as a player when I have some kind of concept and the GM refuses to even meet me halfway.  

For example, someone invited me join a new Star Wars campaign he wanted to start.  No info whatsoever was provided.  I came up with a rebel fighter pilot character.  When the game started, it became clear the GM only liked to play "ye olde space freighter campaign #98214903" rather than something that fits Star Wars (I hate West End for encouraging people to turn Star Wars into Traveller)..

But OK, I can compromise.  My guy can just fly as an escort to the freighter on missions, right?  Wrong.  The GM decides that an X-Wing stands out too much for the smugglers campaign he has in mind, so my concept gets nerfed and I end up a generic crewman on somebody else's freighter in the first session.  Result - I never go back for a second session.

The point here is, the GM does need to modify the game a bit to accommodate reasonable character concepts.  And yes, even blind or pacifist characters could be reasonable concepts, depending on the game (such as CoC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe the GM should not have to go out of his way to integrate a "questionable" concept.  And I'm a big believer in that players need to decide amongst themselves why they stay together, etc with only the flimsiest of pretenses given by the GM.

hhmm..... I keep trying to turn my TRAVELLER into STAR Wars in various subtle ways.


Just without Jedi and lightsabers.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jgantsI'm voting for the excluded middle here.

On the one hand, I absolutely hate it as a player when I have some kind of concept and the GM refuses to even meet me halfway.  

For example, someone invited me join a new Star Wars campaign he wanted to start.  No info whatsoever was provided.  I came up with a rebel fighter pilot character.  When the game started, it became clear the GM only liked to play "ye olde space freighter campaign #98214903" rather than something that fits Star Wars (I hate West End for encouraging people to turn Star Wars into Traveller)..

But OK, I can compromise.  My guy can just fly as an escort to the freighter on missions, right?  Wrong.  The GM decides that an X-Wing stands out too much for the smugglers campaign he has in mind, so my concept gets nerfed and I end up a generic crewman on somebody else's freighter in the first session.  Result - I never go back for a second session.

I’m amazed.  The GM gave no input then de facto nerfed your idea because you couldn’t read his mind?  Better yet to make your character the pilot, “come on up here kid and show us what you got.”  If need I’d give the player a free skill/ability in flying freighters to fit him in if needed by the rules.  All sorts of fun could result as the PC tries to fly the freighter like a fighter, causing the engineer to curse at the damage but the gunners loving him for putting them on target.  And since it is Star Wars who is to say he may not connect up with the rebellion one day.

QuoteThe point here is, the GM does need to modify the game a bit to accommodate reasonable character concepts.  And yes, even blind or pacifist characters could be reasonable concepts, depending on the game (such as CoC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe the GM should not have to go out of his way to integrate a "questionable" concept.  And I'm a big believer in that players need to decide amongst themselves why they stay together, etc with only the flimsiest of pretenses given by the GM.

So true.  Players should also work with the GM to modify their concept to fit the setting.  I call it compromise and communication.  

As an aside, I think a blind PC in CoC would be a very good thing, no sanity loss on looking at those abominations, and dark, who’s afraid of the dark.  The blind PC could wonder why he keeps losing those assistants who are helping him translate the Necromonicon. :)

Quote from: jgantsThe point here is, the GM does need to modify the game a bit to accommodate reasonable character concepts.  And yes, even blind or pacifist characters could be reasonable concepts, depending on the game (such as CoC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe the GM should not have to go out of his way to integrate a "questionable" concept.

This is pretty much my stance, although I think the correct response if a player comes up with a concept that the GM simply isn't willing to adapt the game to is to say "look, that's not going to work" before the game started. In the example you give, obviously the ideal would have been for the GM to be a bit more flexible about what sort of campaign he was willing to run, but to me a close second best would have been for him to say straight out "I'm really sorry, but I'm not really running that kind of campaign". At least then you wouldn't have wasted your time on that one dull session, right?

QuoteAnd I'm a big believer in that players need to decide amongst themselves why they stay together, etc with only the flimsiest of pretenses given by the GM.

This is, again, why I'm a total convert to doing character gen together, as a group.

Quote from: XantherAs an aside, I think a blind PC in CoC would be a very good thing, no sanity loss on looking at those abominations, and dark, who's afraid of the dark.  The blind PC could wonder why he keeps losing those assistants who are helping him translate the Necromonicon. :)

For me, the best CoC games are those which focus strongly on the investigation, and where the really dangerous monsters only come out if the characters have actually screwed up, so my personal guideline for CoC characters is "would they make reasonable protagonists in a detective novel"? With that in mind, there's no reason in my mind why a blind investigator wouldn't work - they could concentrate on interviewing witnesses and that kind of thing.

My first question for the player wanting a blind character in a CoC game would be, "Why?" I'd allow or disallow the choice based on the player's response. And there'd have to be damn good reasoning for me to allow it since I'm prejudiced against characters whose defining traits make them unlikely adventurers.

Quote from: jgantsBut OK, I can compromise.  My guy can just fly as an escort to the freighter on missions, right?  Wrong.  The GM decides that an X-Wing stands out too much for the smugglers campaign he has in mind, so my concept gets nerfed and I end up a generic crewman on somebody else's freighter in the first session.

See, now this is precisely the type of behavior that is caused by the GM taking on too many worries, and too much responsibility.

"An X-Wing stands out too much for a smuggler's campaign"?  What the heck is that?  The GM is worried about fine-tuning the way that the characters are going to work ... so worried that he'd veto your concept?  Silly.  Just needless worry.  Why not just let you work out the kinks?

Communication is good, of course:  In his place I'd have said "Wow ... X-Wing.  Well, very Star Wars, but I'm worried that it'll stand out a bit in a campaign where other people are trying to keep a low profile.  Thoughts?"

If you come back with "Heck, it's a model of starship, not a declaration of principles ... I can just say 'Hell yeah, I've got the same fighter that the rebels use, because it works' ... and if we draw some imperial heat, that's fun for the game, right?" then I'd be one satisfied GM.

Then, of course, there actually would be people who view your starship as a declaration of principles, for better or worse.  You've just testified to your willingness to deal with that trouble, so why the heck should I sweep it under the carpet if that's what I think would happen?

Seems to me that GM put wayyyy too much effort into pre-playing the game:  resolving all the potential conflicts before they could become anything fun in the story.  It's a wierd, risk-averse strategy.

Quote from: jeff37923My first question for the player wanting a blind character in a CoC game would be, "Why?" I'd allow or disallow the choice based on the player's response. And there'd have to be damn good reasoning for me to allow it since I'm prejudiced against characters whose defining traits make them unlikely adventurers.

"Because his hearing's really good ... and I'd like to enjoy some narrations of the horrific, mind-rending sounds that a creature from beyond makes.  I've been party to all the insane angles and glistening slime before, and I'm in the mood for something new." :D

Quote from: TonyLBSee, now this is precisely the type of behavior that is caused by the GM taking on too many worries, and too much responsibility.

You're probably unsurprised to hear that I think it's the opposite: I think it's a result of the GM deprioritising the player's experience enough that it takes a lower priority to the GM's own, personal view of how the campaign should be. A GM who felt that he had a responsibility to make sure that jgants had fun would have changed his assumptions sufficiently to allow for the X-Wing.

Exactly, Warthur.

The view TonyLB's presenting of a game group is... I don't know how to express it, it's like they're those statues at Easter Island, each one stands tall and alone. Not a game group, but just a table full of individuals. "Not my problem. You figure it out."

Whereas in reality good GMs and players try to help one another. They talk.

In my game group I have two players who came to me from two different groups, both of whose GMs I know. Part of the reason they left the game group was for similar reasons to jgants' story - the GM wanted to help create the character. In one case, there were two sessions of the player watching everyone else play, and every character idea they had, they were told, "that's great! But if you did this other thing, that'd be awesome!" - which was really just a nice way of saying, "change it or you won't play, bitch." In the otehr case, the GM had everyone create characters, then began them with amnesia, and as the game progressed and they "discovered" their characters, gave them abilities and disabilities of the GM's choosing.

In both cases, the GM said they were just doing it so it'd be fun for the player, and when the player said, "but it's not fun, I don't want this," the GM just blathered on about how awesome it'd be. That's a GM not listening. What it really means is, "I as GM think this would be fun for me, so it should be fun for you, too - and if not, too bad, see you later." It's the old thing of a leader thinking they know what's good for the people better than the people do.

Now, not even a good GM knows better than a player what's fun for the player. But a good GM will know what's fun for the group better than any individual player. So if you as a player say, "but playing a lesbianstripperninja who betrays the party will be fun for me!" then the GM can't deny that - of course it will be. But they'll know whether it'll be fun for the rest of the group or not.

Players are generally smart enough to know what'll be fun for everyone, it's just that they don't normally think of it. The player naturally has a narrow view of things, focusing on their own character and their own fun; the GM naturally has a broader view, because the GM isn't invested in any particular character, they're invested in the group as a whole.

Notice that many common complaints about GMs come from their breaking this thing, that they should have a wider view - the GM has a pet NPC (and so is invested in their own fun even to the detriment of others'), the GM won't let them play the sort of character they want because it interferes with their "vision" for the campaign, and so on.

A good GM has that wider view, considering what's good for the group as a whole. What's good for the group as a whole can be discovered by talking to the players, seeing what everyone wants and finding some kind of consensus or compromise. And the good can happen in the game session only when everyone feels responsible for everyone else's fun.

For example, in my current campaign, the PCs do missions, and each mission a different PC is in command, whoever has the skills most appropriate for the particular kind of mission. One player was a bit reserved and quiet and not contributing a lot, so a second player - the one who by temperament and brains is probably the best suited to lead, in fact - said, "why don't we make them leader of the next mission, that'll bring them forward a bit." And it was done, and it worked, the player's more lively now. And now all four players are having more fun, because all four are contributing. When one of them was holding back, it wasn't as much fun.

On another occasion I had a different four players, and one was very quiet while another one was noisy. I noticed that when people sat down, the quiet one sat next to me, and the noisy one directly opposite me; whoever sits in direct eye contact with the GM obviously gets more of the action in the session, meeting eyes gets a response. The one sitting by your side you might forget is there if they don't speak up. I said to the quieter player, "I notice you're a bit quiet in the game sessions. I realise it can be hard to speak up when the others are so noisy. What I was thinking is that you might sit where so-and-so usually does, directly opposite me - if I'm looking right at you, I'll remember to call on you. Then you can have more action and contribute more - that's if you'd like to." The player agreed, and it worked, that player's decisions started leading the campaign. And everyone - including the noisy ones - had more fun.

In both cases, that could not have happened unless we all felt responsible for one another's fun. Talking to get consensus or compromise, the GM constantly watching to make sure everyone gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with, that's how good game groups work.

Other game groups that players leave to come to mine, they often have long-term members who are very comfortable with each-other. They don't need to make special efforts to accomodate everyone, because everyone is comfortable with and trusts one another. Of course, those long-term game groups have also had dozens of people come through them who didn't just fit in easily, and since no-one felt responsible for their fun, they never could fit in, and away they went.

The difference here is that those long-term game groups formed because the people just happened to be compatible in their game play styles. What I'm talking about is, rather than just hoping for a random matching, actively working to make things compatible. Instead of just drawing the cards and going "snap!" when things match, and discarding the cards that don't match, go through the pack and find the ones that match.

And since a human being is more like a whole pack of cards than a single card, having many aspects to them, many different things they enjoy, it's not actually that difficult to sort through each pack and match several cards up.

So I think perhaps what we're really looking at here with TonyLB's comments is a difference between having a long-term established group, and having a new group. Bob saying, "I'm not responsible for Jim's fun, Jim can take care of himself" works alright when Jim and Bob know each-other for years. But it doesn't work so well when Jim and Bob are strangers to each-other.

"I'll do what I want, you do what you want, if we happen to match, great, if not oh well" - these groups have most new members leave. "We're all responsible for each-other's fun" - these groups attract new members.

Quote from: WarthurFor me, the best CoC games are those which focus strongly on the investigation, and where the really dangerous monsters only come out if the characters have actually screwed up, so my personal guideline for CoC characters is "would they make reasonable protagonists in a detective novel"?

In response to which the players come back with urban ninjas & black-ops assassins. It never fails--to the degree that sometimes I wonder if I even occupy the same "reality" as my players. :confused:  Oh well, better stick to fantasy games...

Seriously, though, whether I as GM consider this sort of thing my responsibility or not, it's still my problem. And if a game implodes because players aren't having fun or if their character concepts are clashing, then it's a loss all around. If I can prevent that as GM, then I should do so or risk a lot of wasted effort down the road. Both for me and for those players who were actually enjoying the game before it went south. Sadly, I speak from experience.

Quote from: Kyle AaronTalking to get consensus or compromise, the GM constantly watching to make sure everyone gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with, that's how good game groups work.

That's one way that good game groups work.  Not to knock a (very solid) model for fun, but it's not the only way.

I suppose we could play "Sez who?" games here, but really, I'm personally pretty compelled by my own proof (anectdotal as it is to you):  I can get a group of people together, whether folks I know or entirely new people, and run a fun, rolicking game where I don't worry about the stuff you're talking about worrying about.  I make sure (usually just by playing a solid game) that everyone's got roles where they're contributing what the game needs in order to give folks the opportunity for fun ... and then I leave it up to them to take advantage of those opportunities.  I concentrate on doing my job in providing the things I'm supposed to provide.  The other players do their job, and seek out opportunities to enjoy themselves.  On the whole, they usually succeed ... even if they have to get creative in order to do so.  In fact, it's often the most fun when they have to get creative in order to make things fun.

It works.

That was just bad GMing.

If this were my game I would have asked you to give an in character explanation on exactly how your PC managed to get his hands on an X-wing (a craft that is a known favorite of the rebels, and only has one function which is to destroy other ships) and fly it around during a civil war and not get immediately desintigrated by the first imperial frigate that came along.

An explanation such as "My PC is under contract by a Corellian space security firm that has an imperial charter to use X-Wing craft for shipping defense, as long as the X-Wing carries the appropriate markings and colors." would have been good enough for me to green light your character. Or you could have simply chosen a different model fighter such as the Incom Z-95 headhunter or an old clone wars republic fighter.

Quote from: jgantsI'm voting for the excluded middle here.

On the one hand, I absolutely hate it as a player when I have some kind of concept and the GM refuses to even meet me halfway.  

For example, someone invited me join a new Star Wars campaign he wanted to start.  No info whatsoever was provided.  I came up with a rebel fighter pilot character.  When the game started, it became clear the GM only liked to play "ye olde space freighter campaign #98214903" rather than something that fits Star Wars (I hate West End for encouraging people to turn Star Wars into Traveller)..

But OK, I can compromise.  My guy can just fly as an escort to the freighter on missions, right?  Wrong.  The GM decides that an X-Wing stands out too much for the smugglers campaign he has in mind, so my concept gets nerfed and I end up a generic crewman on somebody else's freighter in the first session.  Result - I never go back for a second session.

The point here is, the GM does need to modify the game a bit to accommodate reasonable character concepts.  And yes, even blind or pacifist characters could be reasonable concepts, depending on the game (such as CoC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe the GM should not have to go out of his way to integrate a "questionable" concept.  And I'm a big believer in that players need to decide amongst themselves why they stay together, etc with only the flimsiest of pretenses given by the GM.

Very short answer to the title and first thought in this thread:


Yeah it IS your problem, if you piss off the players - you don't have a game to go to the next week.


- Ed C.

Quoteif you piss off the players - you don't have a game to go to the next week

Unless you do--like Kyle.

Quote from: droogUnless you do--like Kyle.

You've been part of one of his groups, Droog - How do players get in a word edge-wise??

 Is he that verbose during game sessions?


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarYou've been part of one of his groups, Droog - How do players get in a word edge-wise??

Small correction: I haven't actually played a game with him. I've been at a social event for roleplayers that he organised.

Now, that said, it's true that I heard Kyle's voice over all others the entire evening....

It's also true that had I not organised it and invited people, it wouldn't have happened. So you take the good with the bad ;)

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's also true that had I not organised it and invited people, it wouldn't have happened. So you take the good with the bad ;)

Always--that's life. But I'm not putting a value-judgement on it; I'm just recording my impressions.

That's alright, I expect to be judged by people I've just met, that's social life.

I've always been loud, and talkative. This is both a virtue and a flaw, a virtue in that it keeps the wheels of the social machine moving (and gives us Geektogethers), a flaw in that I can talk over people and so on. I try to minimise the bad parts and maximise the good parts, but it kind of falls on its arse when I get a few pints in me.

To try to move it back on-topic, I think that there's some overlap between organising a social function where people new to each-other meet up, and being a GM getting a game group together. Starting a new game group is a bit like trying to organise a single's party. Obviously you need to be someone who's open to compromise and will try to achieve consensus, but on the other hand you need to be someone who can just kick people in the arse to get them moving. That's a hard balance to get.

I manage it twice every three months, for each season's Geektogether, and for the new campaign each time. Ongoing, not so good.

Quote from: TonyLBSee, now this is precisely the type of behavior that is caused by the GM taking on too many worries, and too much responsibility.

"An X-Wing stands out too much for a smuggler's campaign"?  What the heck is that?  The GM is worried about fine-tuning the way that the characters are going to work ... so worried that he'd veto your concept?  Silly.  Just needless worry.  Why not just let you work out the kinks?

Communication is good, of course:  In his place I'd have said "Wow ... X-Wing.  Well, very Star Wars, but I'm worried that it'll stand out a bit in a campaign where other people are trying to keep a low profile.  Thoughts?"

If you come back with "Heck, it's a model of starship, not a declaration of principles ... I can just say 'Hell yeah, I've got the same fighter that the rebels use, because it works' ... and if we draw some imperial heat, that's fun for the game, right?" then I'd be one satisfied GM.

Then, of course, there actually would be people who view your starship as a declaration of principles, for better or worse.  You've just testified to your willingness to deal with that trouble, so why the heck should I sweep it under the carpet if that's what I think would happen?

Seems to me that GM put wayyyy too much effort into pre-playing the game:  resolving all the potential conflicts before they could become anything fun in the story.  It's a wierd, risk-averse strategy.

The example you're giving here doesn't sound like an application of the "not my problem" principle, so much as an application of collective problem solving.

The GM expresses his concern and asks the player if the player has any ideas about how to handle.  The player suggests a solution (people buy his explanation). Etc.

My assumption about "not my problem" (the way you expressed it in the first post) would be to say nothing and then have a TPK when the Empire shoots firsts without asking for any explanation.

When the outraged and disgusted players ask what happened, the GM explains that the Empire shoots on sight and the game was doomed from the moment the PC made the X-wing decision.

When asked how the hell the GM let things get to that point (a few hours of character gen followed by an hour or so of play, and then game termination), the GM shrugs: "I had a blast. The rest of it? Not My Problem."

I like this example a lot better -- if "not my problem" means collaborative problem solving with the out-of-bounds player working toward a mutually acceptable compromise, then I'm heavily in favor of that approach / philosophy with the caveat that I think it could be named better.

Cheers,
-E.