This is part of a email I got from my GM last night after our group discussed the situation with our Star Wars D6 game:
---------------
I really enjoy running a game and putting effort into making players have fun in a game when I feel like I'm getting that same effort back. I'm very much a believer that everyone in an RPG is responsible for their own fun -- and the GM is responsible for making everyone's fun compatible.
----------------

That is sure as hell not how I learned how to game or game master.  Sure, the players do need to contribute but the GM's job is to create an interesting setting and the players go from there and interact.

Am I wrong?  or is the GM way off?

Quote from: The Game Guy;340990This is part of a email I got from my GM last night after our group discussed the situation with our Star Wars D6 game:
---------------
I really enjoy running a game and putting effort into making players have fun in a game when I feel like I'm getting that same effort back. I'm very much a believer that everyone in an RPG is responsible for their own fun -- and the GM is responsible for making everyone's fun compatible.
----------------

That is sure as hell not how I learned how to game or game master.  Sure, the players do need to contribute but the GM's job is to create an interesting setting and the players go from there and interact.

Am I wrong?  or is the GM way off?

I don't see an incompatability in the 2 posited statements.

a) It is the job of the GM to create an intersting, challenging setting, one that hopefully has been designed with many of the players needs in mind.
b) It is the job of the players to bring an effort and energy to the table, to communicate and to validate and return the energy the GM put into it.  Maybe not at the same level...but respect the effort theGM has put into the game.

Both of these are true, in my book.  Help me understand where your incompatability is coming from.

It's not clear from the example what is meant by "players being responsible for making their own fun".  In general I find you get what you put into things, so the more a player commits and contributes to a game, the he is likely to enjoy it.

Of course it's not always easy. A lot of times we'll just coast through a game as players just doing what is required and having a reasonable time doing so. Maybe we aren''t just that inspired by the setting, maybe just never got our character quite right, maybe chemistry between the party isn't there or maybe the game just isn't that good.

Your GM *might* be saying, "I'm not a fucking Xbox -- engage please." Hard to tell. One thing you could do is talk to him and find out what he meant.

It's a hard motherfucking fact of gaming life that GMs rarely get the same effort that they put in the game from their players. This is why we invented improv.

Regards,
David R

Gaming is in fact a two-way street.

Players have to contribute, come prepared, and occasionally show some initiative, especially if they want any type of sandbox experience.

I've seen the phrase used both for both good & evil.

On the meagre information provided by the OP, I'd guess that the GM isn't supplying an interesting setting, expecting the players to improvise their way into interesting situations without really giving them enough material on which to get traction.

That could be phrased in a more neutral fashion, I suppose.

Gaming is like a party. A party host does what he can to ensure all the tools are there for a good time: music, food, alcohol, and the right mix of guests fall under his responsibilities. Then, when the party starts, it's his job to try and kick start the mingling. From there, though, it's up to the guests to make sure they, and everyone else have a good time. All the beautiful people, delicious snacks, and top shelf booze in the world won't make for a good party if the guests won't drink, dance or mingle with one another.  

In other words, too many players consider the game to be passive entertainment, where they can sit around and wait for the fun like the GM is a particularly lumpy big screen tv.

Quote from: The Game Guy;340990Am I wrong?  or is the GM way off?

You're right that it's the GM's job to create an engaging game world, but it's the player's responsibility to engage with it. It's also the player's responsibility to be flexible, transparent, and tolerant.

If something's not working, basically, both parties are 100% responsible for the problem and 100% responsible for fixing it (note: fix may involve binning the game or even the group, if there's some foundational level compatibility).

RPGs are a collaborative effort -- that goes for all roles, player or GM.

Cheers,
-E.

As a player, the more you give the more you get.   Generally the DM is the most motivated person in the group because they are doing the bulk of the work.  Player motivation can vary a bit. The DM can do their best to inspire them but ultimately its up to the gamers to contribute.  If the players give nothing its going to be a pretty dull game.

I've come to the idea that the model where the GM does the lion's share of work is fundamentally flawed. It works sometimes, but too often, it doesn't. It places an unfair burden on the GM, doesn't create enough buy-in for the players and can lead to a damaging over-extension of authority on the part of the GM. I prefer games with a lot of setting input from the players, and provide the GM with better tools for improvisation.

EDIT: I like the band metaphor, where the GM's job is to pick the key and provides the group with rhythm.

Quote from: The Game Guy;340990Am I wrong?  

I think so.

You can't force or otherwise compel people to have fun. It's something that they choose for themselves. Thus there is no possible way for the GM to make the players have fun. He or she is certainly a large part of inducing the proper atmosphere, but it's something the players have to do for themselves.

Also, as you may know, one person can pretty much crap all over everyone else's experiences at the table, making a game decidedly unfun. Thus everyone at the table bears a shared burden of helping make the experience fun, in my opinion.

So, yes, the players need to participate in the making of the fun, as far as I am concerned.

One of the things I worked very hard at with my last group (where I was the GM 99% of the time) was getting this idea across. If you make a super powerful character, you're not going to have fun. If you make bad choices (and expect the GM to pick up the pieces), you're not going to have fun. If you're an ass to each other, you're not going to have fun. And it worked!

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;341047I've come to the idea that the model where the GM does the lion's share of work is fundamentally flawed. It works sometimes, but too often, it doesn't. It places an unfair burden on the GM, doesn't create enough buy-in for the players and can lead to a damaging over-extension of authority on the part of the GM.

In my experience, it also creates its own death spiral. Things aren't fun, so the GM clamps down. The players notice the GM clamping down and respond by being grumpy and argumentative. This ramps up the unfun factor, so the GM tightens his or her grip, trying to regain control. The players grow increasingly unhappy. And so on...

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;341047I've come to the idea that the model where the GM does the lion's share of work is fundamentally flawed. It works sometimes, but too often, it doesn't. It places an unfair burden on the GM, doesn't create enough buy-in for the players and can lead to a damaging over-extension of authority on the part of the GM. I prefer games with a lot of setting input from the players, and provide the GM with better tools for improvisation.

EDIT: I like the band metaphor, where the GM's job is to pick the key and provides the group with rhythm.

I feel like the GM needs to create nearly everything and then hide the fact that he created it as best he can. Letting players help is like letting an audience in on a magic trick as you are performing it: interesting but dull.

Quote from: Cranewings;341114I feel like the GM needs to create nearly everything and then hide the fact that he created it as best he can. Letting players help is like letting an audience in on a magic trick as you are performing it: interesting but dull.

I've been in games like this and as a player, I struggle with maintaining an engagement with a setting in which I have no investment. I don't like being an audience for the GM performing magic tricks for me. I want to be with the GM, making magic.