When I GM I often have a plot, campaign, maps and NPCS amongst other pregenerated aids. However, I always am reacting to what I interpret my players want out of the game. This varies from session to session more so than campaign to campaign. One night, everyone might be grumpy and want to kill things so I rework the night's play to go for more hack. Other nights it might be that the group wants more intellectual pursuits so I do background, history and/or investigation.
The question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play? With the threads on saying yes to players and the evils there of, it seemed like the message was "My way or the highway". Of course, I could be misunderstanding those posts.
So, to cater to the group or not?
Thanks,
Bill
I think I cater to my group (or maybe pander would be a better term), but my own range of interests is fairly limited. So I might offer option B instead of A, but I'm still selecting the night's activities from the list A, B, C.
I think in some ways you have to or nobody will have fun and the group will eventually disintigrate. I don't have a problem switching gears to let the players do try what they want, and would have a problem with any GM that did.
Quote from: HinterWeltThe question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play?
Before the campaign I make sure we (the players and me) are all on the same page with want we want the campaign to be about. On game night, everyone is there to play. The tone/atmosphere of the campaign has already been determined by all of us.
Come game night, we either play the way we planned, with regards to the campiagn's theme/tone or we don't play. Honestly their moods have never really be an issue. If they want something else, they tell me and we play something else or we don't play at all. We continue with the campaign when we are all ready to. But this has happened only once.
Regards,
David R
Yes, I give them what they want. It's their fantasy; I just make it happen.
But its my fantasy, too, so I put in stuff that I want. To me, gaming is all about Wang Chunging tonight, and that means everybody have fun tonight.
When I'm deciding what to do and present in the game, I base that decision on the players and what I know of them.
That's not to say that I give them what I want. But I consider what they want ... sometimes in order to make them fight to get it.
So if they want to be the Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman, it is essential that I realize that about them. Without knowing that, how would I know that J. Jonah Jameson, the newspaper man bent on destroying their reputation at every turn, will be a valuable tool in my mental workshop?
Tony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?
I'm a Situational GM, so a game with me as GM involves kicking the PCs in the rump to start things off, They react and push back harder, then I react to their reactions, then they react to mine, ad infinitum. We share that joy. :D
-clash
i think that it is a two way street. The GM plays to needs of the players. At the same time when the Gm does play to their needs, the players should do their best to buy into it and make if fun for the GM as well.
Quote from: James McMurrayTony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?
Oh ... okay. So that's talking about both desire and
ability, right? It's not merely that they want a gang-war, it's that their mood makes it much harder for them to get fun out of the same thing they did the previous week. I'd have to think about that one.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Yes, I give them what they want. It's their fantasy; I just make it happen.
But its my fantasy, too, so I put in stuff that I want. To me, gaming is all about Wang Chunging tonight, and that means everybody have fun tonight.
Hey! You treat Wang Chung with respect!!
:p
Bill
Quote from: James McMurrayTony, I think he's referring more to what you do when those wants change from week to week. For instance, you've started a detective campaign and three weeks into it they come in surly and pissed off about real life woes. After a few minutes it's fairly obvious they're not looking to solve a CSI murder this week, they just want to blow off steam. Do you drop them into the middle of a gang war and switch gears to John Woo for a week?
Very much so. Thank you James for the assist.
Essentially, I was wondering about the changing needs/wants of the group as play proceeds beyond the GM's initial plan. I have played very fun games where the GM has a plan and you are herded int he right direction. NOTE: this is not railroading so much as supplying positive (and sometimes negative) feedback on the plot of the story. I do prefer a more reactive GM and find no problem with the story going in different directions than I planned. However, it can be fun to explore a GM's view on a world.
Bill
I do prep and such too. After all, I want to have fun and as GM having a plot, NPCs and locales that I've created are all part of my fun.
However, if the players want something else, I've been known to abandon all the prep work and go with something completely different.
So I guess their fun trumps my fun, if it comes down to that.
Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, I always am reacting to what I interpret my players want out of the game.
[...]
The question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play?
While I do
some of this as a GM and want
some of this as a player, my personal preference is moderation and the GM needs to make sure that they really understand what the players want out of the game. For some players, in character reactions or even out of character moaning and complaining is just part of how they play, and if you start adjusting the game to that to try to fix problems that might not be there, you can make the game less fun for them.
There are also players for whom this can encourage "bad role-playing", in the sense that they start playing the GM directly to get what they want rather than playing the game. Also, responding to one player's clearly expressed wants can also mess up the game for a player that doesn't express their different set of wants as clearly.
So the GM should be responsive but in moderation, in my opinion. Know your group if you can and GM accordingly.
Quote from: HinterWeltHey! You treat Wang Chung with respect!!
:p
Bill
Dear Bill:
One day, I was driving my 2-year-old daughter home from Grandma's, listening to a CD which, as it happened, included "Everybody Have Fun Tonight".
We got home and I got out of the truck, came 'round the side and opened up her door. As I reached in to undo the straps on her carseat, I heard my daughter sing, clearly:
"Ev-y body have fun to-night!"
I beamed, and almost wept; not only is that my gaming motto (and, in fact, one of my guiding prnciples in life), but my kid liked the song, too.
Respect? Veneration is closer to the mark.
Sincerely,
-- R!
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Dear Bill:
One day, I was driving my 2-year-old daughter home from Grandma's, listening to a CD which, as it happened, included "Everybody Have Fun Tonight".
We got home and I got out of the truck, came 'round the side and opened up her door. As I reached in to undo the straps on her carseat, I heard my daughter sing, clearly:
"Ev-y body have fun to-night!"
I beamed, and almost wept; not only is that my gaming motto (and, in fact, one of my guiding prnciples in life), but my kid liked the song, too.
Respect? Veneration is closer to the mark.
Sincerely,
-- R!
And just so we are clear...I have all of their albums from Live at Montreal to Points on a Curve...mmm, Points on a Curve, now that is an album.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltThe question here is do you, as GM or player, expect the group's mood/wants to determine play? With the threads on saying yes to players and the evils there of, it seemed like the message was "My way or the highway". Of course, I could be misunderstanding those posts.
I think the misunderstanding there is the one so common on the internet, "the fallacy of the excluded middle." It's not
either the GM always says "yes",
or the players are dancing monkeys there for the GM's amusement. There's a whole range of playstyles in between those two extremes, and combination of different approaches.
As well as railroady GMs, and group therapy mediator types, there can be..
A GM who offers a written-out railroady module and campaign for play - seems like it'll be rigid and inflexible, but in play the GM responds to what the players come up with, and perhaps even leaves the module behind. Begin with decision, go on with consensus.
Or you could have a GM who asks everyone what they want, mashes it together into a campaign they think will suit, but once it's begun, GMs strictly according to the rules of the setting and system, regardless of player desires.
Or you could have another GM who listens to their three current players, but ignores the new player, "you have to be in the group at least six months before we listen to you." Or a GM who ignores the current players and listens to the new one, because they expect the current players to stay no matter what, but the newbie has to be pampered or they might leave.
At any one time there'll be "executive decision" and "consultation". The extremes are quite rare.
Aside from that, the ideal GMing approach to decision and consultation, well of course Rotwang has it as always.
I find that the players rarely all have the same mood, myself. But then, my group has 8 regulars so that's bound to happen.
I treat it a bit like an ensemble TV show.
Not everyone gets spotlight time every session (mine are only 3 hours at a time). But everyone gets some spotlight time every few sessions. So, if you want your character to accomplish X, it might not get around to it tonight, but maybe next session or the one after that.
I also try to mix it up a bit. A combat-heavy session one week will invariably relax to a more interaction or investigation-focused session the next week. Plot-themed type stuff shows up every so often whenever the characters get done with one thing, just to spur the action in a new direction.
Finally, I use discretionary encounters based on the majority mood of the group. If the game is running long and people are gettting tired, I might gloss over a combat or remove the encounter entirely. If the players have been investigating all night and seem ancy, I throw in a random encounter to let them get some excitement in.
Quote from: HinterWeltAnd just so we are clear...I have all of their albums from Live at Montreal to Points on a Curve...mmm, Points on a Curve, now that is an album.
Bill
Where do you live?
And when are you gone?
Huh? No, man, just...uh...chatting. You know. Look, a monkey driving a bus full of clowns!
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Where do you live?
And when are you gone?
Huh? No, man, just...uh...chatting. You know. Look, a monkey driving a bus full of clowns!
Now, if you like Wang Chung (which you obviously do) making you a man of discerning taste, what are your thoughts on Men Without Hats? Good I would expect.
And I live in Frankfort IL now...and looking for a group of playas! Probably a bit too much of a commute though...We did meet at gen con though, oh one of the distinguished tie!
Bill
Quote from: jgantsI find that the players rarely all have the same mood, myself. But then, my group has 8 regulars so that's bound to happen.
I treat it a bit like an ensemble TV show.
Not everyone gets spotlight time every session (mine are only 3 hours at a time). But everyone gets some spotlight time every few sessions. So, if you want your character to accomplish X, it might not get around to it tonight, but maybe next session or the one after that.
I also try to mix it up a bit. A combat-heavy session one week will invariably relax to a more interaction or investigation-focused session the next week. Plot-themed type stuff shows up every so often whenever the characters get done with one thing, just to spur the action in a new direction.
Finally, I use discretionary encounters based on the majority mood of the group. If the game is running long and people are gettting tired, I might gloss over a combat or remove the encounter entirely. If the players have been investigating all night and seem ancy, I throw in a random encounter to let them get some excitement in.
I have used this approach before as well but it can be really rough on the non-focused on players if they do not enjoy the story. Although, it has worked more often than not, it is also a bit fatiguing as the GM. What I mean is that I am constantly going, keeping up with the player(s) then the focus shifts and suddenly I am dealing with a fresh player or group. This is not to say it is a bad approach but I have often found it difficult for me to maintain of an extended campaign. That is more about me than the method though.
Bill