| More DMing Philosophy | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 27 2007, 02:08 AM (161 Views) | |
| kismetrose | Jul 27 2007, 02:08 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
I was reading this thread over at WotC and I ended up writing a really long post in response. I realize that what I wrote makes up part of my overall DMing philosophy; my post gives voice to those thoughts that tend to remain tacitly understood. So I felt I should post it here. "This thread has got me thinking and since it's nice and quiet, I think I'll ride this train where it's headed. It is very important to me to be fair to my players; they are some of my very best friends and I love watching them have fun. It is also very important to me to be fair to myself. I have to take my own desires, abilities, and limitations into account when I run. My players have looked to me to provide them with various things, not just an interpretation of the rules. For example: they have looked to me to provide them with a setting they can believe in, a world that they can experience as much as possible and affect by their actions. At the same time, I have discovered that my settings have boundaries and consequences, as well as flaws and grit; I cannot buy into shiny happy worlds. So we compromise - I give them as much as I can and work as hard as I can to make the world come alive, make the people breathe, and make their adventures matter, but I do it in my own way. They know this and accept it, and come back for more. My players look to me to make a lot of decisions and I do based on many things, including my own desires. Generally speaking, I am the most reliable and organized DM of us and if I don't run, we don't tend to play. At the same time, I know full well that if I am inflexible, disrespectful of them, or if they cannot respect my judgment calls, then I will have no one to play with. They bring stuff to the table, to be sure, but I also bring a great deal. I work on the game far more than they ever have or will. I put my free time into it, though my free time has become more difficult to come by, and I'm not getting paid to do it. In a way, it's like giving everyone a gift, including myself, because I love it but also because it's what I have to give. I don't have the money to take them out or buy them presents, but I have NPCs and stories and all the rest to build fun times for them. They don't have to like my gift, though I very much hope they will. And I'm not obligated to give anyone anything or to accept abuse in return for a kindly gift. So we are equals engaged in exchange and since it is up to me to make so many choices, I will do so to the best of my ability. I have various reasons for limiting book selection, and I don't mind explaining them to players. The first is that I have limitations and though I try to overcome them, I do not apologize for having them. My time and energy are usually split between work, school, home, and gaming; I am only human and can only do so much. There is only so much that I can give to gaming; I cannot spend lots of time reading various books, and I cannot spend my cash on buying many. I need to be able to understand various elements well enough to run them. I need to be able to read about them and think about their implications before inducting them into the game. While I do try to look at things that are brought to my attention, if I cannot deal with them enough, I will probably not add them to the game. It is difficult to take something back once it's been given. There is also a definite feel to a given campaign, a flavor that we all enjoy. Our main D&D game does not have guns, for example; they definitely do not fit with our conception of the setting. If someone didn't agree, I wouldn't simply allow guns because they had an objection. It would warrant further thought. If I felt - and the others felt - that the element could be integrated well, then I'd be inclined to allow it or compromise about it. But I do run worlds with limits and boundaries. I do cultivate a particular flavor for each campaign. If someone wants to play something else, we can certainly talk about switching to another system or genre. I keep the balance of power in mind as much as possible. That's why, before I allow a class, I want to get to know it as much as I can. I want to compare it to other classes and get an idea of how it might fit in the group at hand. If it stands out as being overpowered, I'll disallow it most likely, but I might try to alter it if I think I can do a good job of it. I want to be able to really look at something before allowing it and I don't feel that's too much to ask. There's no one true way to decide what is or isn't too powerful; this is my way, and I try to be as fair as possible. I also base my decisions on my experiences. Most of my players have worked with me to add things, and their requests have been relatively simple and reasonable. A former player asked me to look at elements from all over the place and though he asked nicely, he wasn't interested in telling me how the campaign could be improved. He was far less concerned about flavor and plot hooks, and far more interested in gaining as many advantages as he could get away with. This actually hurt him in the long run since he tended to overbalance characters in one or two areas - if they couldn't use their usual tactics, he was lost as to what to do. I allowed him a few things he asked for because I was trying to be fair and inviting, but what he really needed was to be told no. It would have been more helpful for the entire group, in fact. So I won't be making that mistake again. And at the end of the day, we all have to enjoy the game to keep it fun and running. Everyone's fun is important, but as I see it, everyone's fun is going to be necessarily limited by the very nature of things. One of my players, for example, can enjoy very dark games; the others don't like to go as dark as he does. So I compromise between them. Many things are like that; someone, at some time, is not going to like something that's done or not done. Their fun is going to be temporarily impeded, at least to some extent. How does the song go? "You can't always get what you want." But as long as there's a balance and fun wins out, games tend to go well. So as I see it, it's really a game of give, take, and compromise, as well as moments of fun, less fun, and sometimes not so fun. I accept all parts of that because the fun moments are so very fun. My players do too. If someone doesn't accept that, or can't, or won't, there are other folks they can find to play with. I strive to do the best I can when I game (as well as in other arenas of my life). Gaming is important to me. Helps me recover Sanity points. So if I sit down with a player reasonably and respectfully and outline my reasons for a decision, I put all my cards on the table. They can continue to play or fold, but by that point, they're seeing all I've got." |
|
Kismet's D&D - WoD - SG-1 - FB | |
| {Offline} {Profile} | {Quote} ^ |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Running the Game · Next Topic » |

1:25 AM Jul 11