PDA

View Full Version : A DM's Triumph or is it a Trial?



Godna
2007-09-25, 06:31 AM
At the end of the day as long as everyone leaves happy is that consistered a win in your books? As long as you make it through each session without one of your players killing each other, or does it take more like having the plot moved along as you like it? I ask because once again i am DMing for a group without truly getting to play as a character first. Firstly, the method of story telling i use seemed to work when there was only two or three players. The first two characters played brothers so it was easy having them start out together and the when i asked the third how he would like to find them he told me that he would follow them for a while ect... well that worked and so did the other 3 players that joined over time. I also have them tell me How they would like their character to evolve. And As such i have a campaign entirely based on dragons so far and i make it up little by little in secret as they go along. At first i used the "it wouldn't fit in my campaign for X reason" as a means of control for things but in the fashion of a good liar i was able to keep track of all these reasons and a campaign began to emerge. I know find a way of warping the world around what they want to do or try. To insure that they keep on plot i have one of my friends that i trust (a former DM that i have never played under yet i hear good things about.) whose in on the plot get a basic idea of each session where i want the plot to go. Yet, I have never had a player tell me if they have enjoyed the campaign or ask if they could change the anything about my style even when i fear I've gone to far with something. So I ask, What makes a DM's Trials and Triumphs truly known to the DM him self? If you want to know more about my campaign please ask me and i will put it up in the homebrew section when im done writing up my notes.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-25, 07:16 AM
At the end of the day as long as everyone leaves happy is that consistered a win in your books?

Yes. "Everyone" including yourself, of course. The point of the game, indeed of any game, is to have fun.

Winterwind
2007-09-25, 07:16 AM
For starters, if you are wondering whether your players are satisfied with the way you DM, why don't you just ask them? There is not a single session after which I don't ask my players that very question - "Did you enjoy it?", and the greatest satisfaction is when the answer to it is affirmative (I used to add, "Is there anything you would like to change?" or "Is there anything you would like to include into the adventures, or some sort of focus shift?", but since the answer to that was almost always just "no" I ask these question only occassionally nowadays).

Beside that, I find I did a good job if I get the impression the session was like a story which could have happened in a book, a movie or in reality, and not just a long chain of overcome challenges. If it seems like a coherent story, with characters interacting, interesting thoughts and dialogues, and a climax which doesn't feel like an obligatory obstacle to overcome but just fits in, I am glad. Whether it is the story I had in mind when we started or a completely different one is secondary; I tend to improvise 100% of the time anyway, and to just reflect for five minutes before the start of the session into which direction I think it is supposed to go. I usually have some sort of theme I intend to be explored during the session, but I don't have any checklist of things which must occur during the session, hence I definitely am not dissatisfied if things don't turn out as anticipated.

Godna
2007-09-25, 07:19 AM
The reason i do not ask are kinda varied

1. The Time the game ends varies and is we all scatter after word (we play before school)
2. I am physically kinda threatening so if i want an honest answer i typically get it through proxy
3. They might just not want to hurt my feelings

edit:
4. I already know they are enjoying just by how early we show up to play

The real question is what makes those of us who DM tick at the end of the "Day" what makes determins if our are Trials end in Victory or Defeat?

Winterwind
2007-09-25, 07:24 AM
1. The Time the game ends varies and is we all scatter after word (we play before school)In that case, just ask them before the session starts how they liked the last one, then, or on any other occassion when you see one of them.


2. I am physically kinda threatening so if i want an honest answer i typically get it through proxyWith whom are you playing, that they do not trust you to not use violence, if I may ask? :smalleek:


3. They might just not want to hurt my feelingsSimply tell them they won't, and that you would like to know in order to make the sessions more enjoyable, both for them and yourself. That should usually work.

Godna
2007-09-25, 07:31 AM
In that case, just ask them before the session starts how they liked the last one, then, or on any other occassion when you see one of them. I already know they enjoy them to a degree because they show up everyday.



With whom are you playing, that they do not trust you to not use violence, if I may ask? :smalleek: Various Friends at school its just that i have a reputation (unearned [ the one fight i got in I just took to court]) and I can get away with it plus it mostly psychological. Me big They small so they may not even think of it that way.



Simply tell them they won't, and that you would like to know in order to make the sessions more enjoyable, both for them and yourself. That should usually work.
I would tell them that but they know they won't hurt my feelings because of the group of them they know i only trust a very select group with my feelings. (they don't know that they are part of that group)

Edit: Anyway this isn't about my group really to be honest this is finding out if i'm doing things right, and learning what makes my fellow DM's Tick.

Dausuul
2007-09-25, 07:38 AM
At the end of the day as long as everyone leaves happy is that consistered a win in your books? As long as you make it through each session without one of your players killing each other, or does it take more like having the plot moved along as you like it?

If everyone leaves happy, I consider that a battle won. Of course, it is possible to win a battle but end up in a bad strategic position as a result--e.g., if I give out way too much loot, the players will be happy in the short term, but there are likely to be long-term problems if I can't figure out how to compensate.

Note that "everyone leaves happy" includes the DM. If the players leave happy but the DM is miserable, that's not a victory.

If you're enjoying your game, and your players are enjoying your game, and you can keep things that way for the rest of the campaign, you're doing it right. There is not a single Right Way to Play D&D.

Winterwind
2007-09-25, 07:40 AM
I see. And I had missed your editing of your second-last post before. Okay, I'll stick just to answering

The real question is what makes those of us who DM tick at the end of the "Day" what makes determins if our are Trials end in Victory or Defeat?then.

And the answer is, on the one hand, whether my players state that they were satisfied, and on the other hand, whether I felt the session was immersive, coherent story-telling, instead of just challenge-overcoming and awkward plot-advancement for the sake of it.

Godna
2007-09-25, 07:45 AM
If everyone leaves happy, I consider that a battle won. Of course, it is possible to win a battle but end up in a bad strategic position as a result--e.g., if I give out way too much loot, the players will be happy in the short term, but there are likely to be long-term problems if I can't figure out how to compensate.




Thats Kinda why I'm at where i am in the plot. They In a Gladiatorial Arena and are fighting in a league style Tournament and i was deciding how powerful they are based on other chars their level, with magic items, without magic items, and each other. So that i can see if anyone is too powerful so i can bring everyone else to his level or vise versa. Thus far, they were wrong about who is most powerful and who is least powerful. All the fights other than the fight between those two have been kinda even-ish. ex. cleric 1-shot crited the paladin. (they got a rematch cleric still won but barely) The Human Sorc and the half-black dragon fighter lvl 5 dragonkith lvl 1 has been more uneven thus far but is kinda making me want to slightly weaken the sorc's two buff spells a tad.

Edit2: One of the players also uses his powers in more moderation as to avoid being suspected by the group so he proably won't fight as he would against monsters.

Edit:


And the answer is, on the one hand, whether my players state that they were satisfied, and on the other hand, whether I felt the session was immersive, coherent story-telling, instead of just challenge-overcoming and awkward plot-advancement for the sake of it.

Thats kinda a problem with half my group. 3(2 of my original players + the former DM) pay attention to it 3 dont. (1 Original and 2 of the "new comers")
At least thats what i think so far im going to ask them a few questions to see who remembers what and reward a small amount of xp to those who do and ask those who don't why the story is boring to them. I shall of course do this seperatly from each other.

Winterwind
2007-09-25, 08:07 AM
Thats kinda a problem with half my group. 3(2 of my original players + the former DM) pay attention to it 3 dont. (1 Original and 2 of the "new comers")
At least thats what i think so far im going to ask them a few questions to see who remembers what and reward a small amount of xp to those who do and ask those who don't why the story is boring to them. I shall of course do this seperatly from each other.It largely depends on what you do as DM as well, though. For instance - are there obstacles which are there only for the sake of being an obstacle, instead of being inherently connected with the plot?

This arena thing you mentioned above, for example. Does it serve any purpose for the plot, and if so, are the players aware of it? I have no idea how the characters ended up in this arena, but if that was my group, the characters would be scheming how to escape from there, or maybe trying to talk the other gladiators into a revolt (if they were there against their will), or else (if they were there by free will and had to win some contest for some reason - which I would keep short, we have hardly one combat per session, for they detract to much from roleplaying and require too much time*1) they would be trying to find out more about the champions and alike. But that's because the players know I would never present them with an arena just for the sake of them having to go through a series of battles. If you tend to confront them with obstacles for no reason, the players will play accordingly (I am not saying that you do that, just trying to explain).

Reading what I just wrote I realise that this sounded pretty arrogant on my part. Contrary to the impression this last paragraph might have left, I do not think I am a perfect DM by no means, and neither that ours is the only right way to play. What is very important to understand is, there are different kinds of players. Some prefer overcoming challenges and rolling dice, to others story-telling is the main focus of roleplaying. Neither is right or wrong, but one must realise that there are different reasons for people to play RPGs, and one should just give each what (s)he desires. Therefore, I wouldn't hand out XP to those more interested in the story than the others - it's just that they are more of the storytelling type, no reason to prefer them as compared to the other ones, though.

However, it is very helpful if people playing together have, more or less, the same preferences regarding roleplaying.

I have elaborated a bit more on that in an older thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53092&highlight=Revisited).
Here's what I had to say back then:


I generally find the GNS theory quite useful - not to describe players, but to discuss into which direction players want the game to go.

Allow me to explain.

First, I would split the narrativist part into two distinct classes, namely the Storyteller and the Character Player.

Gamist: likes overcoming challenges. Fun is derived by solving puzzles, employing strategy and optimising a character for a certain goal. Loot and Experience are rewards which help overcoming even stronger challenges and customising the character in order to explore the strategic possibilities inherent to the system. A good roleplaying system is one with lots of mechanical options from which to chose, long equipment lists and so forth. The rules have highest priority over everything, because they outline the strategic options. Fairness is absolutely necessary, because without it, there is no contest.

Narrativist 1 - Storyteller: likes telling a story. Fun is derived by advancing a plot and playing through dramatic moments. Loot are items relevant for the plot. Experience is a reward which helps shaping the character more into a form the player considers benefitial for the plot in the long run. A good roleplaying system is one with a well developped background against which the stories can be told. The plot overrules rules and everything - if it is more dramatic that these people die, it won't matter whether they have hit points left, and no healing spell will help.

Narrativist 2 - Character Player: likes exploring his character. Fun is derived by making decisive decisions and learning more about the character. Loot are items the character is meant to possess because they form a part of his personality. Experience is a reward which helps shaping the character more into the character the player ultimately envisions. A good roleplaying system is one with rules imposing as little limitations on developping the character the player wants to play as possible (which often means no rules at all). The character overrules both plot and rules - everything that happens to a character happens to him because the player wanted it to happen, not because dice-rolls dictated it, and also not because it would seem dramatic/tragic/whatever now.

Simulationist: means that, in addition to the above, believability of the rules and the world has a large priority. While being able to chose from a large selection of weapons would be nice to a gamist as long as none of them are unbalancing the world, if (s)he had additional simulationist tendencies (s)he would discard the ones that seem too whacky/off-worldy/whatever. While this NPC surviving his injuries, albeit crippled and out for vengeance, would be the best advancement of the plot, this player would discard this possibility if the injuries were to great. A good roleplaying system is one which does a good job of representing the setting rule-wise. The reality of the setting overrules everything.


Now, of course, every player is all of this to some degree. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to go out and try to classify players as one of those. Also, every system can be played in every of these fashions, so it doesn't make sense to classify systems strictly as one of those, either.
But what it is good for is to determine what system might be suited better for which player. A friend of mine loves ShadowRun more than anything, for reasons quite similar to what I stated a gamist would like. I, on the other hand, prefer a system with very little rules and a huge background. We stopped discussing which system was the better one when we just realised that ShadowRun was more of gamist system, my friend was more of a gamist than me, and that was the reason why ShadowRun was the better system for him. Now, when I see a system I don't know, I can use the above definitions to quickly determine whether I would like to play in this system, and whether my friends would like to play that system. For instance, I can see Wushu would be a system more closely designed for Narrativist1/2 players, without ever playing it myself, and therefore I would probably enjoy playing it, while that aforementioned friend of mine wouldn't. On the other hand, while D&D surely would be fun, there are systems out there which suit my tastes better. I have recommended said friend of mine to look into D&D, though, because I believe this much strategy and optimisation in a system would suit his tastes very well.

What I'm trying to say, basically, is that how much the players care for the story may depend from two things: How much you, as the DM, focus on the story (anything not belonging to it, for instance, shifts the focus away from it), and are the players the kind of players who want a story in the first place, or would they prefer the whole game to be a strategic exercise of sorts?


*1 Disclaimer: We are not playing D&D, and never have.

Godna
2007-09-25, 08:42 AM
They know how they goto to the arena and are staying to finish this tournament and possibly a team elimination one where they can win a wish for each character. They got there because the original 3 characters had previously entered a gladiator tent to win a free enchantment for their weapons and they impressed the crowd so the announcer told them that they would call them back for the next tournament in a few months. Two dungeons later, He did and thats where they are now.

The OoC reason for this is so that i could stop all the i would win in a fight arguments. My group also seems to prefer combat so i put them in combat heavy situations. Dungeons and a living swamp (full title jungle swamp forest thingy :smallbiggrin: ) where the walls were made of living vines ,that 1 of the players mentioned he tried to cut through before they met him, and controlled by a group of semi-intelligent apes that had enslaved a group of kobalds. ( they saved the kobolds despite that being against their mission objectives and set them loose on the remaining gorilla(gorillas?)