When a DM creates a game (or a world, etc), is it for the benefit of the players or for himself? When a player plays in a game, do they do so for the DM or for herself?
For what or for whom are we playing?
And once you've answered the first question, here's the follow up: How do you show that through play?
The DM is the “host” of the party for his/her guests.
Bringing a “dish to pass” is often the polite thing for guests to do.
DM is host and also arbiter of the game. The game only works if one person {DM} can make calls on rules and what is or is not a part of the campaign.
Cennedi wrote:
NEITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
None of the above might work better to your specific questions.
"We" are all in this together to have a good time! Everybody plays to make sure everybody has a good time. There is no disctinction in my opionion between the DM and the players and being either does NOT entitle you to have fun at anyones expense or be "served".
When a linebacker does whatever a linebacker does, is it for the benefit of himself or the quarterback?
Everyone has a role to play. The DM has a different role in the game than a player does. That's pretty much all there is to it.
We may disagree about what, specifically, the difference in their roles is, but anyone who has any idea what they are doing recognizes that you need both a DM and one or more players to play the game.
Yes.
Really, it depends on the game.
I've played in a game where all the players allowed the DM to continually revise and tweak the game to get the tone he wanted. He had a vision and we were all willing to comprimise to allow him to achive it. While I've never gone that far, I have tried to get a certain tone for my campaign and asked the players to work with me.
I've also played in and run games that are all about the players. Sometimes I create the world and let the players come up with the story, and follow the leads they're interested in. Other times I have a campaign idea and run with it, but work the players into the story.
Zappy wrote:
That would depend on whether I am DM or player. because you all exist to serve me.
I'm having trouble with my email, but I assure you the notification on that will be coming shortly. Oh! And please check your spam folder for an email with the heading "What is my place in the New Monkey Order?".
As an example from the "Fighters need gear to be cool" thread (and the post that inspired this thread):
dmgorgon wrote:
A DM is a player of the game with sligtly diferent rules and resposebilities then other players.
On a more serious note, A DM creates a world to serve themselves, for the joy of building. They run that world, to serve themselves and the players equally. It's their job to ensure everyone has a good time, much like the host of a party.
It's the players job to have a good time so long as that good time is not at the severe expense of the other "guests" or the host. It's polite if they also think of their hosts good time.
Sometimes the host has to do things the guests may not like at the time - "We have to turn out the lights now, sorry if it's an inconvenience..." - in service of a longer term goal - "...so that we can see the candles on Hakim's BIRTHDAY CAKE!! Happy birthday to you..."
I've always likened it to the following.
As the DM, I have created a sandbox. I measured and placed the wood, filled the hole with sand, and even placed in some toys. The Players get to play in that sandbox, and make beautiful things to please me.
I only know what the badguys are going to do, I have no idea how they will actually be thwarted.
edwin_su wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I think everyone has equal responsibility, although the DM generally has more work to do.
It's rare that people talk about the duties of a player at a game. Here's my take: everyone going to a game should strive to be entertaining, and not be there to be entertained. If everyone does this successfully, all will be entertained. Also, a player should absolutely ask a DM what he enjoys from his players, and he should make an effort to provide. The DM is just as deserving of having fun and being entertained as anyone else.
"So I host a BBQ, because hosting a party of any type is more enjoyable than not hosting anything"
And that's a perfectly valid, but not universal, approach.
I might, for example, prefer NOT to throw a party if it's not a type I enjoy and maybe suggest to a few people that we go to a movie instead.
If that analogy is getting more vague about how it applies to the original question, let me arc it back. In this specific situation, if the players weren't interested in playing the D&D game I wanted to run, I might suggest we play "Eclipse" or "Cards Against Humanity" instead.
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Sling617 wrote:
"Here's a question: if you are invited to a garden party, but you'd really like to have baked beans and grilled chicken while drinking beers, do you go to the garden party?"
Excellent followup. That would depend. Was someone ELSE having a BBQ, or does my local restaurant have a good patio? (ie, is there another game available somewhere)
One point I think is important though, in this analogy extension, is if I DID accept the invite to the garden party, I wouldn't try to bring grilled chicken and beer to it. That would be, to me, disrespectful to the host.
ankiyavon wrote:
A DM should not run a game that he does not enjoy.
In that sense, it's very important not to allow the system to control or limit your playstyle, otherwise you may suffer the fate of lemmings.
IMO, if you want to railroad your players then do it. If you want to make the game more old school or play a more story focused game then do it.
As player you can simply turn around and walk away like grampa simpson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyFhAwX6_Zw
Foxface wrote:
Interesting way of looking at things. When I'm the DM, I choose the location for the party (the world), and then we all decide what kind of party we want to have (bash fest, mostly exploration, a mystery to be solved), or even a series of parties of different types (long adventure over numerous play sessions). Since I'm the host, it's up to me to lay down the ground rules for the party (any house rules, specifics on what characters start with, etc.), with everyone offering suggestions, but it's up to me to be final decision-maker. Then we enjoy the party with everyone contributing food (ideas, how the characters behave) to put on my table (DM-run encounters).
DemoMonkey wrote:
As a social experience, I think everyone has an obligation to everyone. There's not only the relationship between the DM and the players, but also the relationship players have with each other that needs to be addressed.
Of course, seeing how D&D is a social thing,
Foxface wrote:
As a DM, I provide the players a world to explore and a story to enjoy. This is a service, but I'm not doing it just for them. I'm doing it for me, because I love the creative process and storytelling. When I stop enjoying the sessions, I'm out.
As a Player, I expect the DM to provide me with a world to explore and a story to enjoy. I appreciate what the DM does, but I'm there to have fun. When I stop enjoying the sessions, I'm out.
So to add you to the analogy family, SteeleButterfly, you are throwing a potluck.
(As an aside, I love potlucks in the real world; working in a very culturally diverse workplace makes the assortment awesome!)
Foxface wrote:
ALL SHALL BOW BEFORE ME FOR I AM THE MIGHTY OVERLORD AND MASTER OF THE MOUNTAIN OF DEW!
The DM serves the players entertainment, and the players serve the DM snacks.
Foxface wrote:
Not all players want to full control of the story. To use video game terminology, some players want a big sandbox they can play in, while other players want a theme park they can ride in.
There's not just two types of group. This is a big spectrum.
Some players and groups are very happy to sit in a minecart and ride the rails from levels 1 to 20. Other groups want a little more choice choosing which rails to follow and the order of events even if the overal destination is the same. Others prefer a clear rail to follow on their own terms with the freedom to leave for tangents and sidequests before returning to the path.
I love my group. But they're not the best sandboxers. They need a little guidance and clear hooks. They're very happy playing Adventure Paths on the rails. I've had to adjust things a few times, but for the most part they're happy to follow where the story leads.
Other groups I've had would have run off in the opposite direction just because.
As a DM, I like my players not to be afraid to veer off the rails and go off on a tanget if they really want. If that's something they want to do, then I'm willing to oblige. But I also don't want them to just abandon my plot just to spite me. If it's clear I put some work into something (likely because I anticipated them going in that direction) changing their mind is somewhat rude.
As such, I think there's a give/take going on. The DM cannot be expected to work selflessly just to entertain the players: they have to be getting something out of the experience. And often times that's exploring their world or telling a story they wish to tell. Simmilarly, while the players have the freedom to do anything, they have to be aware that the DM is the one putting in time and effort between sessions, and is the one doing all the work. So they shouldn't go out of their way to sabotage his game.
Nautilus wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
As a DM the phrase "know your audience" is very helpful advise.
Foxface wrote:
This question feels like a false dichotomy bordering on rabble-rousing. The game serves everyone involved. If it didn't, they wouldn't be involved.
Shadewyn wrote:
I think the DM is a servant to the players but he chooses the type of service he offers.
Most of my enjoyment as DM is seeing the PCs enjoying themselves. In my approach to gaming the DM creates an interesting world full of interesting npcs with all sorts of agendas. Done right this is a lot of work. It is though a labor of love. The DM operates the world and adjudicates the PCs interactions with it. The DM is the absolute final arbiter on everything except whether a player plays.
I've found that the best approach is to discover what inspires you as DM and then find players who want what you have to offer. With player buy-in, the DM then serves the players by acting as a window into his world.
As a DM I am captain of the ship, which decides the intitial destination, but could change depending on unforseen circumstances like weather (dice rolls), or I may steer the ship to a location that one of the ships crew is interested in. I also keep order on the ship.
Uchawi wrote:
The DM is like a store owner who is selling an experience. The players buy or don't buy. Nobody can tell a store owner what to sell but no one has to shop at his store either.
The DM is selling an experience though so it really is all about the characters interactions with his world.
Uchawi wrote:
To the O.p.: Mutual enjoyment. Not yours, not mine, ours. 
Foxface wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
Who here has experienced or personally felt "DM Entitlement?" Defined here as the DM feeling that he or she is owed something for all the "work" he or she is doing to provide a game for the players?
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Foxface wrote:
When a person prepares a dinner party, is it for the host or the guests?
Without the guests, is there really a party?
Without a host, is there a venue?
No one serves anyone. People get together to have fun, some to share fun.
Here's an exercise: play a class you don't want to play or DM a setting you can't stand.
Another exercise: make a character that you really want to play; don't play it. Make a setting or adventure that you really want to exist; don't use it.
I've actualy encountered a DM who tried to charge money for his services.
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
It's a complex thing.
Serving someone doesn't always involve giving them what they actually think they want.
A plumber might tell a homeowner that he needs to re-do some major plumbing line, costing thousands of dollars. This isn't news that the homeowner wants to hear, but it needed to be said and the work does indeed need to be done. Now many homeowners might ask the plumber to "simply patch it up, make it usable, do a quick and dirty temporary fix and save me some money". A poor plumber may listen to these homeowners, give them what they ask for, and indirectly cause them to lose lots more money because of damage caused over the next few years due to not fixing the problem the correct way.
A DM isn't so different. A good DM knows how to run an interesting, fun game. Many times, the players don't really know what they want. They might ask for cheap and easy magic items, or they might ask for super powers, or they might ask for a city to run. A poor DM simply caves and gives the players whatever they ask for, and may often inadvertantly ruin a campaign. A good DM can say "no", give the players what they need, rather than what they think they want, and eventually show the players a better way to play. An alternative method, mentinoed by the OP in another thread, is to give the players what they want until they get sick of it, and then try to convince them to want something else. I've never actually seen that work out, but he said it works, so maybe it works for some groups.
Still, my opinion is that one good chef in charge makes for a great meal. 5 chefs of varying levels of experience all trying to add to the meal makes for something inedible. For some groups, letting all the chefs participate, so they can feel good about themselves I guess, is more important than serving the best possible meal. It's certainly not my style though. I'd rather play under a DM who knows what he is doing and focus on playing the game.
Of course, for every rule there is an exception. All DMs are not created equal, nor are all players. Occasionally, the players might have the right idea, while the DM tries to push the wrong idea on them. This is usually a self-correcting problem- if a game isn't fun, players will stop showing up. Uusually there are hints and potential to correct the issues before things get to that point, but it can get to that point eventually.
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Beoric wrote:
akaddk wrote:
There's a word floating around in dictionaries.
"Fun."
All the motivation the DM needs for his calls, all the motivation players need to engage in the game that the DM wrote/chose to adjudicate.
Sometimes, I write adventures and my players say "Ivstin, I'd really like to try that adventure so you can see how it works." In that moment, they choose to assist me in developing the game.
Sometimes, the players ask me to have "a mystery night," or some such, in which case I do my best to entertain them with their goals.
At the end of both of these equations is a desire for Fun.
AS TO THE INTENT OF THIS QUESTION AND ITS DESIGN...
Allow me to throw some psychology into this conversation. Clearly, this is a behaviorist question. In the "behaviorist world," we look for motivations and how we feed those motivations. This is sometimes called "serving" those motivations. I think that if you focus your attention on a game intended for amusement as to the behaviorist style of gratification motivation, you are sorely going to miss the universal constant in the game known as fun. Dissecting the agenda into "who feeds what gratification motivation" is highly unnecessary if the goal is shared and agreed upon. If the goal is shared and agreed upon, clearly both gratification motivations are being met - or attempted to be met - which is a core concept in relationship building.
Allow me to openly declare I am not a behaviorist. I follow the Jungian model of psychology and the archetypal development found in Dungeons & Dragons.
- Each character represents a "higher self" of the player, or a form of "self" that is not represented by their regular archetypal self (or perhaps is the same and is being refined)
- The DM represents the archetypal sage and/or philosopher. This archetype is a creator or "withholder" of information for the players to seek through the window of each character
- The World represents the archetypal genesis or revelation of intellect upon the material manifestation
As to the utility of this model in understanding the approach to gaming and the gratification motivation, the archetypes of each player, the DM, and the world, work in conjunction to create what we term "archetypal growth." This growth is what roleplaying develops in every medium of interaction - from your "code switch" at work, to your enjoyment of a book or movie. It is also considered part of the process of Initiation.
That was fun!
Respect!
Check out my new book, "To Serve Players."
(now with added heart-friendly recipes)
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Best not ask a question which tries to answer itself in a particular way even as it's being asked.
A good game is facilitated by the GM (world, adventures, plotlines, itterative narration, rules ajudications etc.) and driven (characters, goals, actions, reactions etc.) by the Players, and at the same time driven by the GM (NPCs, goals, actions, reactions) and facilitated by the Players (changes to the world, participation in adventures, personal plotlines, itterative narration, use of the rules to formulate character actions etc.).
It's drama created as a live gestalt-formed experience.
Your question suggests division where there should be none, and a greater degree of satisfaction on one side or the other where it should be equally shared. Where divisions do exist, they exist to support the shared experience, and to provide the surprise and drama that a game requires to be entertaining. The GM knows what is going to happen and how NPCs act and react, the Players don't. The Players know how their Characters act and react and decide as a group how to deal with what happens, and they make things happen themselves.
The pleasure is at least as much as reading a book, because it's being 'written' live and with interaction.
So to answer the questions - we are playing for the enjoyment of everyone involved and it is showed in play by allowing as a group for everyone to do everything I've described above whenever necessary and desired to move the dramatic shared story forwards.
As DM I world build for myself and run it for the players. I like putting a bit of thought in to the game world, but it's not sacred, and I'm happy when characters exert influence over it.
It's like being in a band. No, no one is here to serve the other or whatever weirdness.
Occasionally when you give an actual play account, it's a bit like having recorded at a studio and passed out a CD.
There is some slight discrepancy in the GM's say in things - generally the GM tries to delegate his power as often as possible.
Beoric wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
We are all there to serve D&D.
Play D&D.
Emerikol. wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Noon wrote:
Foxface wrote:
"Serve" is such a loaded word.
"obey worshipfully, fearful of the awesome might of..." would have been better.
The only "serving" done at my gaming table is that of food and drink, which are served by whoever brought, prepared, or is closest to them.
Tonight, for an example, I have a wonderful bottle of bourbon that I intend to serve to any of my players (whom are all of legal age to drink alcohol, mind you) that wish to join my wife and I in partaking of - though I shall not be likely to do the serving myself, as my seat at the table is furthest from the kitchen.
Foxface wrote:
Nobody serves anyone.
If I am DM and I present a campaign idea to the group, they need to decide whether they want to play or they don't. If they don't then we either play in someone else's campaign or we play another game entirely.
DM's don't have to change anything to suit players, but players may have to change things depending on the game. If I want to run an all elf only game, don't show up with a human "elf friend". Now if for some reason that is the only character you will play, then you will just have to sit this one out.
Playing is a privilege, not a right.
I feel like DM's and players are there to serve the best interests of the game/campaign, with the DM having a wider area of responsbility in that regard.
Foxface wrote:
The DM is there to tell you when you're dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5wLEZ1lg4&list=UUGbjBJzVKbLRC8PZA20h0hg
ivstin wrote: