The Responsibility of Fun

In a game with a GM, who has the responsibility of making the game fun? I offer this as an open discussion. Consider what two popular guides say on the subject, which appear to be in contrast: "It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game." "You are the master of the game - rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun." Which of those statements do you believe better fits your viewpoint? Why? How do those viewpoints manifest in the games you're hosting or in which you are a player? (Please mention specific games you play in examples without passing judgment on games other people play.)

I kinda view a blend of them. As a GM you set the world and the framework of what is in the world and how it works but it takes everyone to make it fun.

Metroknight said: I kinda view a blend of them. I'm largely with Metro. I believe that the GMs job is to entertain the players, but that everyone contributes to the experience. It's not always true that every player makes a good contribution to a game I'm running, but if a player is making a game less fun I would certainly be asking myself why I have them in it.

I'm going to quote Frank Herbert for a second: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it." And then follow it up with Thomas Hansard (or Stan Lee if you prefer): "...T he possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility..." Given that anyone participating in a game can destroy its fun, everyone has the power to assist in making it fun. This has held true regardless of game system, age group or playing medium. The GM might have better access to the fun kill switch and bears the brunt of the table setting in regards to games, but by no means absolves the players from their share of responsibility and power.

Dave D. said: Given that anyone participating in a game can destroy its fun, everyone has the power to assist in making it fun. This has held true regardless of game system, age group or playing medium. The GM might have better access to the fun kill switch and bears the brunt of the table setting in regards to games, but by no means absolves the players from their share of responsibility and power. That is well said. All participants need to try to have fun, and for different people this means different things. So long as none of the players' idea of "fun" is making things unfun for the GM or the other players though, it should not be hard to keep everyone happy. For the GM, you do have to know your group and your system, but for the players, you have to know your GM. know up front if possible if the game isn't something you would find fun, and also make sure your concept is something that won't ruin the GMs day. I have had players swear to me that any d20 supplement would work in my pathfinder game, and as a result, it's not fun at all for me to hunt down the source material they used, keep track of what they do, etc. nothing ruins the fun for me as a GM more than being unaware of a capability that a player has, and if my fun for the evening is ruined, you can bet I'll be trying to ruin it for you too, which is as simple as placing traps where there weren't traps before or giving you DCs you can't roll, "Oh, no that was a masterwork trap that was hidden by a master magician. The king only hires the best, so DC50 was totally fair." becomes normal. It's also the responsibility of the Host to provide some measure to keep things fun. a few degrees' difference in a room, or the wrong type of soda can change the mood in a hurry. At least that part is alleviated over Skype and/or Roll20.

Steve S. said: or the wrong type of soda can change the mood in a hurry. At least that part is alleviated over Skype and/or Roll20. I do miss that part of gaming to a certain extent. Figuring out what soda to buy, setting out snacks. It's part of the experience in physical gaming that just doesn't translate. Although I am planning on mailing out Christmas cookies to my Tuesday group. ...and if you're setting out RC Cola for guests, you only have yourself to blame when someone flips out.

I believe that a mix of both is the answer. Yes, the GM is the one responsible for most things in a game, but if he can't cooperate with the players (or if the players don't want to cooperate with the GM/one another) then there is no fun to be had. Modesty is best, people!

RC cola is the best! Both players and DM bring their own brand of fun to the game. If players sit there like bumps on a log EXPECTING to be entertained there will be issues.

Its the GM's job to keep the game from hitting dead ends, his/her job is to keep the game running so that it doesn't kill fun, if he/she does that then everyone, especially the players since there are more of them, should be able to create and have fun. Generally, unless this is a repeat instance for one GM (who honestly would have to be pretty bad I think), I'd say its the players fault if they get bored, after all they're playing games where they can pretty much do whatever they want to advance the mission, or flat out try and abandon it (although you should talk to the rest of the players and the GM about this). At the end of the day any first time players or GM's should be able to make fun pretty easily without anyone feeling an obligation to make artificial fun as long as no one in the group actively puts it down. --my limited experience as a GM who's never had to make the game fun, but has it anyway.

Of those that responded to this post (or any that follow), do you or have you played D&D 4e and/or D&D 3.5e?

I stopped playing D&D at 2nd edition but I have tried 3.5 and didn't like it. To many rules or complications. When it takes an hour for me to build a character, I grow to dislike the system. I use a retroclone for some games and other older systems that are less restrictive with their rules. It lets things be more fluid, in my opinion, without the rules getting in the way. I tried D&D next but grew to dislike it by the second or third update. I occasionally get their update packet to look over but do nothing else with it.

Well I'm hoping this doesn't turn into rants on specific game systems. The two bullet points in the OP are taken from the 4e and 3.5 DMGs respectively and they appear to be in stark contrast as to whose responsibility it is to ensure fun at the table. I want to see if that correlates to how people view it themselves. There is a certain segment of DMs in the hobby that hold to the "DM as Entertainer" role which I believe leads to particular forms of DM entitlement.

Headhunter Jones said: Of those that responded to this post (or any that follow), do you or have you played D&D 4e and/or D&D 3.5e? As long as I'm not buying a ticket to the Ron Edwards "System Matters" train, I'll play along. I played in one game of 3.0 back when it was first released - I'm fairly sure the GM didn't have the DMG at the time. I've run several sessions of 1st Edition Spycraft which is based on 3.0, but I didn't feel the need to buy the DMG. So, no I've never played 4e or 3.5e but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I do believe that system does matter in that a game that knows its priorities runs better than one that is all over the place and forces the GM to modify the game, but that's not what I'm hoping to discuss here. It sounds like most of you (so far) align yourselves with the 4e take on the responsibility of fun even if you've never played the game. Do the games you primarily play discuss this at all? Or was this something you decided for yourself?

I have played since 2nd edition and have tried every edition extensively so far save for Next as I prefer to wait until the product is finished before playing. I also play a multitude of other games and I keep the same view through out all of them. Both player and DM/GM hold an equal amount of responsibility in terms of generating fun. The specifics of this process differs from group to group as styles change but like sex and so many other fun things it takes the involvement of two or more parties to work well. Also just an aside as I am not trying to derail or assert judgement but I am uncertain how someone that played/plays 2nd edition finds that 3rd/3.5 is too "number heavy" but that is just me. Once again not trying to start shit, just expressing my own opinion.

Kristin C. said: DM entitlement? Yes, some DMs take the position that they are the primary entertainer (and content creator) in the group and, as such, players should adhere to their notion of fun, whatever it is, on the basis of "hey, you asked me to run the game." This is DM entitlement - that the players "owe" them something for their efforts. Since I've mostly seen this discussed in a D&D context, I looked into the DMGs to see what they had to say about this and found the stark contrast that I quoted in the OP. (There are other quotes along these lines in both books that show the two different philosophies at play.) This is anecdotal, but I have found that the "DM as Entertainer" belief is most strongly associated with players of 3.5e and is not a belief held by any 4e DMs. So I'm wondering how much of this comes from the particular game one is playing rather than a personal belief. So those of you who don't play D&D primarily, please tell me if the games you do play have anything like what was quoted in the OP. I'm curious to know what other games say about this.

Headhunter Jones said: The two bullet points in the OP are taken from the 4e and 3.5 DMGs respectively and they appear to be in stark contrast as to whose responsibility it is to ensure fun at the table. There is a certain segment of DMs in the hobby that hold to the "DM as Entertainer" role which I believe leads to particular forms of DM entitlement. Headhunter Jones said: I do believe that system does matter in that a game that knows its priorities runs better than one that is all over the place and forces the GM to modify the game, but that's not what I'm hoping to discuss here. It sounds like most of you (so far) align yourselves with the 4e take on the responsibility of fun even if you've never played the game. Do the games you primarily play discuss this at all? Or was this something you decided for yourself? In my experience, 'fun is king' if the players and GM arn't having fun with the game then there isn't going to be a game for very long. That said, what's fun for some people isn't fun for others. It's fine to have a simulationist game with the GM as impartial arbiter; it's fine to have a story based game with the GM as entertainer; it's fine to have a player vs player murderfest with GM as judge, jury, and executioner; as with other forms of entertainment not all of it will appeal to you, but all of it appeals to someone.

Without touting the "I've been a GM of [this system] for [this many years]" nonsense, I'd like to resoundingly agree with the consensus of mutual entertainment responsibility within gaming. Having played and GM'd a lot in 2e, I too had held some concerns about mechanics in other systems, and what that meant of gameplay - not in the measure of how the game was played, but how the game would be fun, and who would be responsible for that (spoiler, I thought it wouldn't). Now, playing primarily 4e, and GMing Shadowrun 5e for a live group, I can honestly say it does not matter WHAT you're playing, how much narrative you prepare, how rules heavy or improvisationally oriented your game is - it's a team sport; the point of gaming is to have fun - and to that end, it is each person (GM and player) who is responsible in contributing to that goal.

@ Star: Thanks for your input, but I feel it misses the point of the thread: Who is primarily responsible for the "fun" in the group and how does the game(s) you play specifically spell that out?

Virtually any game I have come across (dozens, over three decades of gaming) hold the view that the GM's main job is to be a referee, and that fun is created together. In my opinion this also means that the GM has the veto vote when it comes to rules matters, including interpretations. Players who derive fun from finessing rules may not agree with me on this.

Shortland said: Now, playing primarily 4e, and GMing Shadowrun 5e Does Shadowrun 5e offer any insight into the topic specifically along the lines of what was quoted in the OP?

I believe its the GM's job to create a setting that should be fun, the players responsibility to make it fun, and the GM's duty to prevent it from becoming not fun.

Patrick v. said: Virtually any game I have come across (dozens, over three decades of gaming) hold the view that the GM's main job is to be a referee, and that fun is created together. In my opinion this also means that the GM has the veto vote when it comes to rules matters, including interpretations. Players who derive fun from finessing rules may not agree with me on this. That. The live game of 4e I'm currently playing is all less experienced players, and the one (other than I) with some experience is the GM. We make sure that people know when stuff is legal/illegal (you might provoke an AoO there. That effect you had on a monster ends this turn. Did you remember to make a save against that effect? Oh, don't forget to take your ongoing damage) - but at the end of the day, the purpose of those rules is to help balance, and facilitate the progression of the game, ie, having fun. If you're spending too much time debating rule interpretations, you're missing the point - which is to have fun.

Headhunter Jones said: Does Shadowrun 5e offer any insight into the topic specifically along the lines of what was quoted in the OP? Honestly? No. It's still the group's job, as a whole , to make the game enjoyable. I don't believe that specific systems necessitate anything any different. Yes, running SR5 might take a bit more planning that say, 4e. Yes, it might require more work from the GM to prepare maps, challenges, extended matrix tests, etc etc... but that does not detract from the goal of the game - fun - and the responsibilities of the players to participate in generating that within the narrative they are building and playing in with the GM. I write my missions/campaigns, but it is ultimately the players that decide how they pan out and evolve; I enjoy watching them experience that just as much as they should enjoying being a part of it - if they're not, we both need to discuss why, and how to address that.

Headhunter Jones said: Kristin C. said: DM entitlement? Yes, some DMs take the position that they are the primary entertainer (and content creator) in the group and, as such, players should adhere to their notion of fun, whatever it is, on the basis of "hey, you asked me to run the game." This is DM entitlement - that the players "owe" them something for their efforts. In my experience the GM is typically investing more time in preparation for a game session than the rest of the players combined, though I am sure there are exceptions. If this is the case, and the GM isn't enjoying it, then the game will usually come to a halt in short order. So in that respect the players and GM do need a compatable notion of fun. This is not to say the GMs notion of fun is the only one that matters, just that if you're not having fun and you're not willing to stand up and offer to run something else that'd be fun for everyone your options are pretty limited - i'd suggest talking to group about it, and if that's not getting you anywhere then perhaps it's time to look for another group that shares your notions of fun. Headhunter Jones said: @ Star: Thanks for your input, but I feel it misses the point of the thread: Who is primarily responsible for the "fun" in the group and how does the game(s) you play specifically spell that out? I felt I'd covered that in my first post at the top of the thread, and at this point there seems to be a loose consensus in the thread. The purpose of my post was to highlight that system can matter, or not, and that this will depend on the group of players and their notion of fun.

Shortland said: Headhunter Jones said: Does Shadowrun 5e offer any insight into the topic specifically along the lines of what was quoted in the OP? Honestly? No. It's still the group's job, as a whole , to make the game enjoyable. I don't believe that specific systems necessitate anything any different. Most games that have a GM discuss his role relative to the players' role. In discussing the role of the DM, the 3.5e DMG says: "You are the master of the game - rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun." (pg. 4) "In your role as Dungeon Master, you're the focus of the game." (pg. 5) "If the game is fun, it'll be to your credit." (pg. 5) It's understandable why some DMs believe they're the game and that the fun is on entirely on them with advice like this. The following edition doesn't take this tact and it seems like a lot of other games might not either. I'm hoping to see specifically what other games say about this aspect of GMing and how that aligns with everyone's particular viewpoint.

Star said: I felt I'd covered that in my first post at the top of the thread, and at this point there seems to be a loose consensus in the thread. The purpose of my post was to highlight that system can matter, or not, and that this will depend on the group of players and their notion of fun. Right, now what I'm looking for (if you're willing) is whether the specific games you or others who've posted play explicitly agrees or disagrees with what you believe. For example, if you play 3.5e and believe that it's everyone's responsibility to make the game fun, then it would appear the DMG doesn't agree with you. Quotes from the rule books would be awesome, but under the principle of charity I'll take your word for it if you don't feel like looking up quotes.

Headhunter Jones said: Most games that have a GM discuss his role relative to the players' role. In discussing the role of the DM, the 3.5e DMG says: "You are the master of the game - rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun." (pg. 4) "In your role as Dungeon Master, you're the focus of the game." (pg. 5) "If the game is fun, it'll be to your credit." (pg. 5) It's understandable why some DMs believe they're the game and that the fun is on entirely on them with advice like this. The following edition doesn't take this tact and it seems like a lot of other games might not either. I'm hoping to see specifically what other games say about this aspect of GMing and how that aligns with everyone's particular viewpoint. Not to discount the source, or tout an air of arrogance, but if you're taking statements like those too seriously, you wont enjoy the game, and you wont be having fun. Yes, being the GM is a responsibility. Yes, being the GM is work. So is owning a puppy. If you're not having fun, and the players aren't having fun, then there is no point. To that end, there needs to be give and take between both groups, and contribution from both ends. If I, the GM, am not making content which interests, or engages my players, no matter how much I might enjoy it - I'm not being an effective GM. If the players are not engaging me, expressing their own goals and interests, or trying to develop their characters, I don't enjoy the end product. Yes - it is my *responsibility* to manage the narrative they play in, and sure, if they have fun, they will probably thank me - but as Star points out, if the players are not deriving their own enjoyment from the game, the GM will likely grow tired of putting the work in, and hang up his hat. You're not just a rules lawyer, you're a narrator and observer, traveling along on the adventure... and that is a story you should love to watch.

Shortland said: Not to discount the source, or tout an air of arrogance, but if you're taking statements like those too seriously, you wont enjoy the game, and you wont be having fun. Yes, being the GM is a responsibility. Yes, being the GM is work. So is owning a puppy. If you're not having fun, and the players aren't having fun, then there is no point. To that end, there needs to be give and take between both groups, and contribution from both ends. If I, the GM, am not making content which interests, or engages my players, no matter how much I might enjoy it - I'm not being an effective GM. If the players are not engaging me, expressing their own goals and interests, or trying to develop their characters, I don't enjoy the end product. Yes - it is my *responsibility* to manage the narrative they play in, and sure, if they have fun, they will probably thank me - but as Star points out, if the players are not deriving their own enjoyment from the game, the GM will likely grow tired of putting the work in, and hang up his hat. You're not just a rules lawyer, you're a narrator and observer, traveling along on the adventure... and that is a story you should love to watch. Yes, I understood what your viewpoint was several posts ago. What I'm now interesting in finding out is if the specific games you play explicitly back up your viewpoint in the rulebooks. Whether you value them backing you up or not is a different issue. To offer another example, if someone came to me and said "Yes, the DM role is Entertainer and whether or not the game is fun is entirely on him" and then pointed out those quotes from the 3.5e DMG, I'd disagree with his viewpoint but would understand why he believes that.

Headhunter Jones said: Right, now what I'm looking for (if you're willing) is whether the specific games you or others who've posted play explicitly agrees or disagrees with what you believe. For example, if you play 3.5e and believe that it's everyone's responsibility to make the game fun, then it would appear the DMG doesn't agree with you. Quotes from the rule books would be awesome, but under the principle of charity I'll take your word for it if you don't feel like looking up quotes. Is it just me, or does it seem like searching for precedent in the rule books themselves is a bit tongue and cheek, especially given the spirit of this conversation? I hardly seems reasonable that Wizards specifically built 3.5 with the notion that Players should not be trying to encourage fun in the game, the GM is solely responsible for that (though, I never enjoyed 3.5, so maybe they have a point...)

Bottom Line: Having Fun In the end, don't worry about whether you're playing the game correctly. There's no wrong way to do it, there's just the way everybody wants to. If you're the only one who wants to turn out the lights and use flashlights whenever a ghost appears, maybe you should rethink it. If nobody else enjoys it, what good is it? The only real failure is to keep making mistakes once you know they're mistakes. It's every player's job to be lenient and patient with other players and the Storyteller. If mistakes are made, point them out (if necessary) and move on. Don't belabor the point. It's impossible not to occasionally make a decision you regret you're making this up as you go. Just don't mock someone mercilessly for a mistake. What goes around comes around. You'll make your own mistakes soon enough. -- World of Darkness, White Wolf Publishing, p. 196

@Star Exactly.

Shortland said: Is it just me, or does it seem like searching for precedent in the rule books themselves is a bit tongue and cheek, especially given the spirit of this conversation? I hardly seems reasonable that Wizards specifically built 3.5 with the notion that Players should not be trying to encourage fun in the game, the GM is solely responsible for that (though, I never enjoyed 3.5, so maybe they have a point...) Since we can't reliably discern Wizards' intent on the matter, we can only go by what was written. Their vision of that game and the DM's role is expressed, in part, by the quotes I've provided above. As I mentioned, if someone read that and came to a particular conclusion that we all evidently disagree with based on the preceding posts (but is quite common to find in my experience), then it could be understood why that person has that particular viewpoint, even if we don't agree with it. Now what I'm interested in seeing is what other games say on the same topic to get a sense of whether this viewpoint is an artifact of what the 3.5e DMG has been pushing. Please bear in mind that I'm not debating you (or anyone). I'm asking for information that comes from the games you are playing. Thanks for the quote, Star. That's what I'm going for, though anything that specifically talks about the ST or GM role relative to "fun" would be ideal.

I also think that the bullet of "If the game is fun, it'll be to your credit" is being misconstrued by many. As a DM you tend to be the one coming up with the idea for a setting and at least the first hook to draw your party in, I understand that this does not apply to everyone thus why I said "you tend to be". With that in mind often or not you are the one setting the stage from which your players can build upon, you are their foundation. I think what that bullet point meant was to say that a fun game tends to start off with a great foundation of fun which DM's tend to be responsible for creating. Now it is entirely possible for the DM and players to hash out the world and the starting point for the game with each other during session zero, although as you have brought up numerous times HJ each edition (of D&D) is to be treated as their own entities and in 3.5 the ideas are different from 4th or 2nd etc. and should be treated as such. Also there is the "golden rule" that has applied from the early days which trumps what is presented in the books, that states that a DM and players should feel free to use, alter or ditch anything they want from the books in order to make the game fun, those statements being included.

Headhunter Jones said: Since we can't reliably discern Wizards' intent on the matter, we can only go by what was written. Their vision of that game and the DM's role is expressed, in part, by the quotes I've provided above. As I mentioned, if someone read that and came to a particular conclusion that we all evidently disagree with based on the preceding posts (but is quite common to find in my experience), then it could be understood why that person has that particular viewpoint, even if we don't agree with it. Now what I'm interested in seeing is what other games say on the same topic to get a sense of whether this viewpoint is an artifact of what the 3.5e DMG has been pushing. Please bear in mind that I'm not debating you (or anyone). I'm asking for information that comes from the games you are playing. Thanks for the quote, Star. That's what I'm going for, though anything that specifically talks about the ST or GM role relative to "fun" would be ideal. You totally just said "RAW not RAI" about the GM / Player fun dynamic. I am willing to admit my eyes rolled slightly, mostly because what seemed to stem from an open discussion about how GMs and Players felt the role of fun was divided amongst them, to cataloging snippets of text regarding GMing from various sources to consider them Canon. I of course realize that you and I are not debating over the validity of this dynamic... I'm simply a little confused as to why bother looking for something that, regardless of the intent, both GM's and Players alike should take with a grain of salt. [edit:] not intending to sound like an enourmous dick. just curious.

Phisto Roboto said: Also there is the "golden rule" that has applied from the early days which trumps what is presented in the books, that states that a DM and players should feel free to use, alter or ditch anything they want from the books in order to make the game fun, those statements being included. Yeah, I was trying to think where I remember seeing that in the AD&D 2E DMG.

Shortland said: You totally just said "RAW not RAI" about the GM / Player fun dynamic. I am willing to admit my eyes rolled slightly, mostly because what seemed to stem from an open discussion about how GMs and Players felt the role of fun was divided amongst them, to cataloging snippets of text regarding GMing from various sources to consider them Canon. I of course realize that you and I are not debating over the validity of this dynamic... I'm simply a little confused as to why bother looking for something that, regardless of the intent, both GM's and Players alike should take with a grain of salt. Let me further parse this, I guess: You and I believe the same thing - that the responsibility of fun is on everyone playing the game, not just on the GM. [ Edit : And our viewpoint is backed up, explicitly, by the quote I provided in the OP.] There are others that do not believe this, though they appear to be absent from this thread (so far). Rather than tell that person they are wrong, I am suggesting we examine the games we are playing to see if those games explicitly support or refute these two viewpoints. I would submit that 3.5e D&D does support it. While I may not agree with said viewpoint, I could understand why someone would have it, especially if they have played or primarily play 3.5e D&D. I'd love to see quotes from actual rulebooks that support or refute any of these notions because I do not play all the games others in the community do. Does that clear up my agenda?

In skimming through the GM advice sections for some of the systems I have, I found this, and thought I would share it: MYTHS: The GM as Entertainer / The GM as Adversary A common perception in role-playing games is that GMs are entertainers for a passive PC crowd. The GM plans the adventure, spends hours before the game writing down notes, and presents a complete full realised expereince that the players camn simply sit back and enjoy. This sort of attitude is encourages by published adventures that present a carefully planned "programmed" adventure with read-aloud text and an inflexible plotline. Indeed few published RPG books eventry to paint an alternative picture to how role-playing games should function. And while there's nothing inherantly wrong with this style of play, it places a lot of work on person's shoulders and exempts the rest from any responsibility for what is supposed to be a mutually entertaining experience. There are [a] number of solutions to this problem, but the most obvious is to do away with the notion that the GM is just here to entertain the players. Instead, the players and Gm should see themselves as partners in and effort to have fun. If the players take on a more active role, accepting some of the responsibility for entertaining themselves, each other, and the GM, the GM in turn, can put more effort in to depicting a vivid game world and its inhabitants. The flip side of this problem, and one that can be even more debilitating to a sucsessful game, is the frequent tendancy of players and GM to see each other as being on opposite "sides," an adversarial relationship in which the GM is constantly trying to make things harder on the players while they are continually trying to "beat" the GM. This approch to role-playing games is almost the exact opposite of how they should be played. The relationship between GM and players is, or should be, a cooperative one, even a symbiotic one. They are working togeather to tell a story. The GM presents the players with plots and NPCs, and the players interact with them and feed new material back to the GM,who in turn incorporates that into future storylines. -- Legend of the five Rings [4th Edition], Alderac Entertainment, p. 313 The section continues beyond that, but the start seemed most relevant to your query.

Headhunter Jones said: Rather than tell that person they are wrong, I am suggesting we examine the games we are playing to see if those games explicitly support or refute these two viewpoints. I would submit that 3.5e D&D does support it. While I may not agree with said viewpoint, I could understand why someone would have it, especially if they have played or primarily play 3.5e D&D. I'd love to see quotes from actual rulebooks that support or refute any of these notions because I do not play all the games others in the community do. Does that clear up my agenda? Yes, I understand your purpose - yet I don't really see the necessity, I mean, other than for just mild curiosity as to how specific game publishers and their individual designers felt to phrase the role of the GM, and how it pertains to fun/enjoyment. We've all clearly stated that we feel this is a two-way role, and no one is discounting that; if someone did, I'm not entirely sure having precedent to cite would specifically refute or support a dissenting opinion. But, you are correct - some people would read "If the game is fun, it'll be to your credit" , and take that to heart, and potentially trying to take everything on their shoulders - potentially to their detriment of their own enjoyment. In my experience, these tend to be people who are relatively new to GMing, or ones who are more interested in crafting their own narrative, than having their players interact with it - though that may not be the case for everyone, regardless of the unintentional implications of the so called "flavor text," you know?

Awesome, Star, thanks! That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I'd also love to see anything that backs up the "opposing" view.

Shortland said: Headhunter Jones said: Rather than tell that person they are wrong, I am suggesting we examine the games we are playing to see if those games explicitly support or refute these two viewpoints. I would submit that 3.5e D&D does support it. While I may not agree with said viewpoint, I could understand why someone would have it, especially if they have played or primarily play 3.5e D&D. I'd love to see quotes from actual rulebooks that support or refute any of these notions because I do not play all the games others in the community do. Does that clear up my agenda? Yes, I understand your purpose - yet I don't really see the necessity, I mean, other than for just mild curiosity as to how specific game publishers and their individual designers felt to phrase the role of the GM, and how it pertains to fun/enjoyment. We've all clearly stated that we feel this is a two-way role, and no one is discounting that; if someone did, I'm not entirely sure having precedent to cite would specifically refute or support a dissenting opinion. But, you are correct - some people would read "If the game is fun, it'll be to your credit" , and take that to heart, and potentially trying to take everything on their shoulders - potentially to their detriment of their own enjoyment. In my experience, these tend to be people who are relatively new to GMing, or ones who are more interested in crafting their own narrative, than having their players interact with it - though that may not be the case for everyone, regardless of the unintentional implications of the so called "flavor text," you know? Your editorializing as to necessity of my inquiry aside, I bolded your summation of my request for its clarity. Thank you. As to "flavor text," as you say, I think one of the major downfalls of many RPGs, D&D in particular, is that the sections on GMing are often presented as "tips," "tricks," or "rough guidelines" rather than firm rules that describe the role of the GM in the context of a given game. Dungeon World , for example, includes the following in its GM section: "This chapter isn’t about advice for the GM or optional tips and tricks on how best to play Dungeon World. It’s a chapter with procedures and rules for whoever takes on the role of GM." But this is likely fodder for a new topic.

Phisto Roboto said: Also there is the "golden rule" that has applied from the early days which trumps what is presented in the books, that states that a DM and players should feel free to use, alter or ditch anything they want from the books in order to make the game fun, those statements being included. Shortland said: Yeah, I was trying to think where I remember seeing that in the AD&D 2E DMG. Is such a rule actually listed in the AD&D 2e DMG and, even so, is that rule carried over into other games like 3.5e or 4e D&D? I'll check my 4e DMG later today.

Headhunter Jones said: Awesome, Star, thanks! That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I'd also love to see anything that backs up the "opposing" view. The GM sections of most books are pretty extensive, and I think you'll find some short essays on the subject as well as a mention somewhere in most core books. I would be weary of using either of the D&D quotes that have been floating about as evidence of Wizards of the Coast's position on the subject. The variation between editions might reflect nothing more than the views of whoever wrote or edited the section - it's not quite like white wolf where the same advice is echoed in a range of products and editions over many years. I believe WotC have an archive of online articles so you might be able to find something there that'd expound on the views of whoever worked on each edition.

Headhunter Jones said: As to "flavor text," as you say, I think one of the major downfalls of many RPGs, D&D in particular, is that the sections on GMing are often presented as "tips," "tricks," or "rough guidelines" rather than firm rules that describe the role of the GM in the context of a given game. Dungeon World , for example, includes the following in its GM section: "This chapter isn’t about advice for the GM or optional tips and tricks on how best to play Dungeon World. It’s a chapter with procedures and rules for whoever takes on the role of GM." But this is likely fodder for a new topic. This lends itself to my interest in your endevour here (emphasis mine); why do your perceive the often lacking, or in some cases, not specifically defined procedures to be rigorously followed as detrimental to their system?

Both styles work or me because as GM I set the stage and secondary characters while the main actors on the stage (the player characters) steal the show and for good reason. I want them to take my story somewhere I didn't plan or didn't imagine. It helps spark my creativity and the players respectively because with new locations or direction means new challenge(s) or new character(s) to deal with.

Shortland said: Phisto Roboto said: Also there is the "golden rule" that has applied from the early days which trumps what is presented in the books, that states that a DM and players should feel free to use, alter or ditch anything they want from the books in order to make the game fun, those statements being included. Yeah, I was trying to think where I remember seeing that in the AD&D 2E DMG. Eh, mature people don't need to be told that interpreting the rules for the common good is everyone's own responsibility. Until there is a communally appointed rules overseer, I think it's up to each gaming group and enthusiast to enshrine the Golden Rule. [And even if that overseer were to ever emerge, I doubt that s/he'd have a lot of leeway to work with.]

Star said: I would be weary of using either of the D&D quotes that have been floating about as evidence of Wizards of the Coast's position on the subject. The variation between editions might reflect nothing more than the views of whoever wrote or edited the section - it's not quite like white wolf where the same advice is echoed in a range of products and editions over many years. I believe WotC have an archive of online articles so you might be able to find something there that'd expound on the views of whoever worked on each edition. I would concur with this; a good friend of mine is in game development, and follows (quite extensively) some of his favorite products, and the designers that work on each iteration of them (D&D included). Knowing the difference between the single individual (or group of individuals), that developed specific aspects or wrote specific content for a game can be noticably different, depending on the specific beliefs that individual held, and not necessarily in the spirit of that eddition of the game - or system.

Patrick v. said: Shortland said: Phisto Roboto said: Also there is the "golden rule" that has applied from the early days which trumps what is presented in the books, that states that a DM and players should feel free to use, alter or ditch anything they want from the books in order to make the game fun, those statements being included. Yeah, I was trying to think where I remember seeing that in the AD&D 2E DMG. Eh, mature people don't need to be told that interpreting the rules for the common good is everyone's own responsibility. Until there is a communally appointed rules overseer, I think it's up to each gaming group and enthusiast to enshrine the Golden Rule. [And even if that overseer were to ever emerge, I doubt that s/he'd have a lot of leeway to work with.] *Slow clap*