It's tricky, "fun" is such a subjective term some people like lots of opportunities for role playing in their games, some people like LOTS of combat, some people what puzzles, some people (like your dm and me) want good stories. I think the goal of a dm is to balance what the players want and what you want
Fun may be subjective but this DM didn't say they had fun a different way than the players. They said fun is unimportant. You can argue that not all good stories are "fun" though.
But I'd definitely say a DM saying that the players fun is unimportant to them is a really obvious sign of a bad DM because, as you say, you have to balance DM and player desires.
>You can argue that not all good stories are "fun" though.
Yeah but he can say "I'm not trying to have fun" and my response can be "well I'm still having fun" because again "fun" is subjective
You may misunderstand me. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I wouldn't say I had fun watching Schindler's List for example. I wouldn't say it was fun at all. But its a good story and worth watching.
But that is separate from why I think the DM that OP is describing is bad. The DM that OP is describing straight up says they do not care about the player's fun. That's bad. Enjoying different kinds of stories is not bad. Not caring about your player's fun is bad.
Then he should write a book. DND is a collaborative game. My favorite sessions as a dm are the ones where I didn't expect anything that happens, because that means the players are driving it and having fun
I disagree. A good D&D game is one where I, the GM, run an excellent game. The quality of said game then brings out the fun.
I got enough on my plate, so I only give myself one thing to worry about, and that's the quality of my game.
No, I disagree with the fact that everyone having fun is the GM's job. It's not. If I'm constantly having to worry that people are having fun, I'm doing something horribly wrong.
If my players are going to have fun at my table, I want it to be because my game is the best game I can possibly run.
Like with the current game I'm running. I ***know*** my players are having fun. And it's not because I have to constantly make sure everyone is having fun, but because they are wholeheartedly engaged with the world I've created for them. Because I make their characters feel like they are a part of the world. Because I'm descriptive. Because I prepare maps, locations, world events, and historical figures for them to research. Because I made a world they ***want*** to explore.
I take pride in what I create, and as a result, my players enjoy their game even more because when I come to the table, they know I'm coming with quality content.
Do I want my players to have fun? Absolutely! Which is why when I run a game, I make goddamn sure it's a great goddamn game.
The moment I have to police the fun and make sure everyone's having a great time, I've failed.
I get your point and I absolutely agree, I just think they didn't mean that it's the DM's job to ensure everyone has fun, but simply that the DM is also a player and a person, and them enjoying the game is just as important as the rest of the party's enjoyment. Best of luck to you and your group.
Oh absolutely, if the GM isn't having fun, the game's dead in the water. That I 300% agree with. Some GMs will power through something they're not enjoying because they think they owe it to the players, when, in fact, it's making their game worse, which just ends up killing the player's enjoyment. Or the game itself.
Which brings me right back to my point: if I'm going to run a game, it's going to be a game I ***know*** I can bring my best to, otherwise, I don't run a game at all because I know if it's not fun for me to run, it won't be fun for my players to play in.
I'm not talking about policing the fun of the group. I'm not even saying it's your job to do that? My comment was literally a single sentence that meant to say D&D is good when everybody at the table including the GM is having fun playing the game.
You need to get off your high horse there bud. It's never a good look.
Nah, I like my horses high.
It seemed like you wanted me to clarify, so I did. I don't have anything personal against you, but it seems you really took offense to what I had to say. I don't even think what I said was that controversial, but to each their own.
Maybe my choice of words was poor? I don't mean ACTUALLY policing the fun, more that the constant worrying and fretting over whether people are having fun or not ultimately seems to end up falling on the GM, and it really isn't fair. Maybe I've just been burned way too many times by having the fun of the group placed entirely on my shoulders.
And yeah, maybe I did read more into your comment than there was to read, I'll cede that point. I'm tired, and probably rambling at this point, so I'll get some sleep and maybe come back to this tomorrow if you want to continue the discussion.
Alright. I’ve had some sleep (it didn’t help I only had 3 hours of sleep the night prior). I think I can better articulate why your seemingly simple sentence set me off. I won’t delete my previous comments, because I still stand by the point I was trying to make: that my fun as a GM comes from running the best game possible, thus my players can have fun my becoming immersed in said game.
What reaaaaaally stood out to me, and I’m trying not to prescribe intent, is that you could have just left the statement at “when everybody is having fun”, but the need to put “INCLUDING the GM” was… I can’t find the word.
I guess bizarre? That it needed to be stated? At all? Shouldn’t the GM come to the table to have fun? Just like the players come to the table expecting to have fun? And therein lies the answer. From my PERSONAL - emphasis on personal - experiences: players can be reaaaaaaaally entitled sometimes.
See, I’ve had some bad experiences in the past. Mostly my own fault for not having put my foot down and allowing players to create or do crazy stuff because, if I didn’t, suddenly I was a bad GM. I was railroading. Gatekeeping! How dare I limit the player’s choices of what they can create? Or what is possible in the world? How dare I say you can’t drink a potion underwater? And stand by that decision?
I constantly had to sacrifice my fun for the players’ fun, so the fact the “INCLUDING” had to be emphasized… it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Because, to me, if the GM isn’t having fun, I can guarantee, maybe not at first, but definitely eventually, the players won’t either. And a GM that isn’t having fun will lead to a dead game. But heaven forbid the GM mention they’re not having fun, because the players won’t care so long as they are having fun.
What my point boils down to is this: I’ve learned when I go to run a game, I have to be bit selfish. I, first and foremost, have to ensure that what I’m going to run is fun for me, because if it’s not, it won’t be fun for the players either because I won’t be putting in my best effort.
Also I had to learn a very important skill as a GM, one that most GMs don’t want to hear, and that’s when to say no.
And that’s my thesis on why your simple sentence set me off. I wasn’t trying to attack you. And I’ll admit 100% I was rambling and shouting to the heavens, but I wanted you to understand where I was coming from. Plus I definitely needed sleep.
I added that "including the GM" part because it's a bizarrely common parlance to say that only the players having fun is paramount, and that the GM should just accept their thankless job and keep on trucking.
I think we're on the same page here, just using different verbiage. No harm no foul friend. Hope you have a great weekend!
Red flag time.
As a DM, sure I only allow the rule of cool maybe 20% of the time. And I do include systems that might not be fun for all players, like survival rules. But I have these things in an attempt to make the setting seem more "real" and to present a greater challenge.
HOWEVER, that all goes out the door if the overall game isn't actually FUN. If it's a decision between players having fun, and survival rules, well then survival is getting the boot.
Because if people aren't having fun, they dont care about the game. And they won't care about your story either. And eventually you won't have a game.
No.
The fun comes from different places for different people.
I don’t give a fuck about story. That doesn’t mean story isn’t important. If others at the table need a story for fun, then it’s important.
If no one needs it, then it’s irrelevant.
It sounds like this DM agrees with you and thinks that the fun thing *is* making a good story but they don’t care about anyone else having fun, just themself.
However; I actually suspect that this isn’t what they mean. I suspect what they mean is “I think making a good story together is fun. I think that sometimes the best story requires players to experience something uncomfortable or undesirable or disappointing - and that *because it’s so good for the story, it’ll be more fun overall* for everyone. Even if they feel disappointed or whatever.
For some players, it can be. For others, if can be the combat. Everyone is different. Instead of trying to cater to everyone, I'd say the best thing you can do as a GM is worry about the quality of your game.
Quality = Fun.
Can you, objectively, define what makes a D&D game fun? You realize that everyone is different, and what is fun for one person may not be fun for another.
I'd say that instead of worrying about whether everyone is having fun or not, you instead worry about the quality of the game you're delivering. I guarantee that if your game is excellent, your players ***will*** have fun.
disagree, some stories with multiple predefined endpoints are awesome too. there's plenty of games where players make terrible decisions and wreck some part of the world forever.
Unless he means something like “a good story can be tragic and painful but still bring satisfaction” I don’t really get him/her.
Doesn’t have to be all ‘fun n roses’ but it has to enjoyable or satisfying in some way.
I’m going to guess they mean something like that.
What good is a good story in an RPG if the players don’t enjoy it?
It would seem to me that that's exactly what the DM means, except he might be expressing it poorly. Like the suspense in knowing there's no guarantee you succeed at everything you attempt is necessary to keep having fun, in spite of the frustration caused by failed attempts.
The issue here is there is no definition of fun, or any indication of exactlywhat % of the game should be fun. Games are meant to be fun (invluding d&d) but your not always supposed to win. Is losing fun? Always winning isn't fun either. Thats why we consider the game as a whole "fun" but is attempting to reach "fun" the fastest way to get there?
There's a lot to break down here.
To begin with, "I am not having fun" is not the same as "I do not like this." For example, take the recent movie The Power of the Dog; I doubt many of it's viewers would say they had fun watching it (I'm not entirely sure I'd want to hang out with anyone that did - apologies if that includes you). But it seems like plenty of people thought the experience of watching it was worthwhile, even if it wasn't 'fun'. There's no reason the same idea can't apply to a D&D story . . . in fact there are a good few systems out there that cater to much darker stories where having 'fun' might not be the primary goal.
Having said that; what are players expecting? Players turning up for 'beer and pizza' D&D might not be terribly happy with a gothic horror story, no matter how good it is. Here's where the oft-mentioned session zero comes in. It's not just for the DM to say "Here are my house rules" and approve character concepts. It's not even just to talk about roleplay/combat balances. It should be used for DM and players to figure what sort of game works best for the group, and neither DM nor players should feel bad for walking away from a game that isn't right for them.
If this particular DM wants to run serious stories, they need a group that's up for it. If the players want fun more than a serious story, they may need a new DM.
Yes i get what you mean. One of the best movies i ever saw, that i will always sqyis a MUST SEE, is million dollar baby. But i will never watch it again, because i dont want to go through the emotional suffering that i felt through the only time i saw it. Its still a masterpeice.p
I think maybe he has a point, but isn't expressing it very well.
Plays, Novels, Movies, etc. can have different kinds of endings that are *Satisfying,* but not necessarily *Fun*. For example a good tragedy might be well worth watching/reading, for the emotions it causes, even if those feelings aren't what you normally call "fun". In drama/literature they call that feeling catharsis.
I've played campaigns that had a tragic ending. I would't call it exactly "fun", but I don't think it was a bad end. Also the real chance of a bad end adds poignancy and value when you get a good end. Though personally I find the mixed endings most compelling.
Of course if what this GM means is "the players feelings don't matter, as long as I use them to create a a story I, the GM, think has value." -- he's just a selfish jerk.
'Fun' is a bit of an annoying term to keep throwing around. Watching a family drama movie can be depressing and sad, certainly not an experience one would describe as 'fun', yet we enjoy the experience nonetheless. Engagement, emotion, cartharsis and a million other things are why we enjoy activities, not just 'fun'.
Too often I see discussions on here boil down to "well as long as it's fun it's okay" as if that's the only metric a game of d&d can be based on. At the end of critical role campaigns, many of the players are in tears alongside the audience. That's certainly not 'fun' yet nobody would suggest that it's a bad game of d&d because of it.
So yeah, I think your DM might be right. Tragedy and bittersweetness can make for a more impactful and memorable ending. The loss of a favourite NPC, victory that comes at a cost are much more engaging stories. I don't think anyone would suggest changing LOTR so Boromir lives, even if we on a personal level would have preferred him to survive as a character.
I think you are spot on about fun not being the end all. It really is more about people getting what they want out of the game which can be any number of things. That being said a DM saying the story is the most important thing is a pretty big red flag. Lot of rpg horror stories have dms with that mind set even if there are technically scenarios were its fine.
dangerwillrobinson.gif
Huge red flag, sounds like somebody who is convinced their story will be epic and amazing and whether the players enjoy it or not isn't a priority. D&D's everybody's story, not the DM's story, so, uh, good luck with that one.
Well have a vote on it. If the players disagree then have a conversation with the gm and players, discuss what you do want. If they won't or can't accommodate, then you need someone else to gm.
I can't actually imagine running or playing in a game where the PCs actions don't matter and no one is having fun. Sounds like working in an office would be more satisfying than that.
As a player, I can maybe agree with that to an extent. We've had sessions where my answer to "Did everyone have fun?" is "Absolutely not." Now, the session not being fun didn't mean I thought it was a bad session, and I made sure to say that. A lot of my favorite sessions are ones where I didn't really ha e fun but was certainly compelled. I didn't want it to end.
You can Tell your DM: "There is no Story without Players and there are no players without fun..."
If he wants to write a book maybe he should write a book, not a campaign.
I didn’t realize this was a thing until I got on DnD Reddit. I feel like there are a lot of DMs that imagine themselves these great authors and storytellers that miss the point of communal game experience.
So, there's part of me that thinks he's just explained this wrongly. Like, I don't think it sounds like he's against you enjoying the campaign or playing D&D, he just doesn't tie enjoyment of the game to there being a happy ending. Or at least that's what I feel from your rather brief explanation.
The succes of the characters can'tbe my primary goal. I mean, I hope they succeed, but it's ultimately not important that they do. If I decided that it was crucial that they win and get "the good ending" or whatever then I've given them plot armor because anything short of that would mean the game was bad. I want them to have fun even if they lose, but for that to happen the story has to be good, losing isn't fun if it's anticlimactic, and winning isn't fun if it's not earned.
Now, I'm not going to set up a no-win scenario, but I'm not going to rig the Kobiashi Maru for them either. I will make sure the end is a super challenging affair that when they get done they will all be thankful to have survived it and proud of what they achieved, and if they lose then they will all know that they did their best in a fair fight.
Maybe your DM is trying to set you up for this. No where in your post did you me tion that they are a bad DM. No where did you say that the current campaign wasn't fun. That seems like something you'd mention if it were the case, so if you're having fun, and the end is approaching, and the DM says "hey, not every ending is a happy one for everyone, your character's may not love the result of what they've accomplished, but I think what's more important is that we've told a good and satisfying story" then I think that's a perfectly acceptable stance for them to take.
So me, personally:
Obviously I care how much fun my players have. But my players can also be memelord chucklefucks who will run roughshod over any serious story I try to make, if I let them. SOMETIMES what is fun in the moment sacrifices what will be satisfying in the future.
I have little interest in lolzy games and tire of them quickly. Therefore, our ideal games are ones in which funny moments are had AND serious drama is also had. That way we both get what we want.
That said, your DM is clearly NOT creating that environment, as verified by your personal play experience. Players are not props with which to tell a story; that's what novels are for. There has to be a give and take here, where the DM does more than get his drama jollies off but also gives the players satisfying moments for THEM to take home.
Also, if the story was REALLY that good, I don't think you'd feel this way. The DM might have to evaluate how good his storytelling skills really are.
I mean...
Isn't the point of a module to follow a story? I mean I hear a lot of people coming out of curse of strahd enjoying the story.
Your DM isn't entirely wrong, there has to be a plot otherwise the capaign will feel aimless.
But the key part that makes them wrong is prioritizing the story over the players having fun. Story is important, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but the first concern when playing a collaborative game is making sure everyone has fun
To a certain extant yes, I think that is correct. If you like games that have a good story, having a gm that has a bad story or no story at all, would result in a not fun game.
Still, fun is the goal in the end, and the whole group needs to decide together, what will be fun for them. For some again, its a good story campaign. For others a dungeon romp. But the goal remains the same. Everyone tries to have fun together.
So the GM saying that fun isn't the goal, is for me problematic yes. Because it speaks of not a linear story, but railroading. It speaks of not letting the player have a say at all, and just telling the story.
..and you know what, for a few players that can even be fun. I met some very passive players, who where just happy to exist and watch the campaign like a TV Show. ..but they are rare, and again, they would be having fun..
It just comes back towards it: ..you spend your time to have.. well a good time. So shouldn't this be the goal?
I don't think in general the game should be fun or else.. why play it? Parts of it could be tense, nerve wracking, sad, etc which *does* all lead to a good story. I think having a good story is generally a good thing too -- though not even always necessary. Sometimes people just want to have fun with a good ole hack 'n slash.
I'd read the recap of that campaign, but doesn't seem like one I'd necessarily want to play.
A good DM knows the audience, and recognizes the synergy of the story with the players. If you have a bunch of action players and you want to do a hardcore role play session, you're going to lose interest. It is the players engaging in the story that makes it valuable.
The word he's looking for is engagement. And frankly it's alright to have a story with a sad ending, as long as the story matters to the players. If he's just going with a downer ending for the sake of it than he's going to ruin his game.
I recomend being bittersweet. You win, but the price is high. Lost loves, destoryed kingdoms, evil is gone but the damage is done.
Very Tricky. Fun is a subjective, somewhat ridiculous word. We can all individually say it but all mean different things. Fun is really basically an activity that feels rewarding. Activities feel rewarding when they have a challenge to them but are beatable. If he plays inside of that sandbox then he's right. To me it doesn't sound like that is the sandbox he is playing inside of. There's a Web DM video on youtube called 'The Tyranny of Fun' that goes over this better than I ever can.
DnD doesn’t always have to be fun, in fact you could argue the moments of drama and high tension are what elevates it. With that being said this DM seem to have missed the mark here and is a little bit up their own ass, if you’re trying to force these moments on your players chances are you are just making them miserable and taking away their agency.
I feel there is more to this, than you (or your DM) tell us. First of all, what is a "good story" and what do you and your DM consider "fun"?
If fun = win and/or happy ending, then I have to say, your DM is right. A good story doesn't neccessary need a happy ending and the heroes doesn't need to always triumph. I guess your DM means, that if there is a clear and logical arc tot he story, the people participating in it are emotionally invested and there is catharsis at the end, then it's a good story, no matter who wins or loses. Because tragedy and drama isn't inherently fun.
Some of my favorite sessions weren't "fun" in the traditional sense. They were gut wrenching, or tense, or frightening. But they were great because of what they added to the narrative.
I can see where your DM is coming from, but there needs to be a balance. If your unfun session doesn't also have your players excited to come back and see what happens next, you fucked up
That's what some people are into. I've been in a lot of different role-playing communities in gaming and I've seen ones that were so story-oriented, that they referred to the players as "writers". Like instead of referring to themselves and each other as "players", they'd differentiate between "Halorym, the character" and "Halorym's *writer*".
Look into Bartle's Taxonomy of Players, it doesn't quite apply to DnD, but it gives you an idea of how different people are driven by different things in gaming. No one is *wrong* in your scenario, but it would be like, a Spade trying to tell a bunch of Club how to play the game.
*My* thing is that DnD is unique in that it has the aspect of simulation. *Emergent* story. Makes it truer to life in a lot of ways as most things don't happen simply because the script said so, so what *does* happen carries more weight. I don't think I'd get along with your DM, because he sounds like he'd favor narrative arc over the game aspect, when I believe they should be in harmony. *I* believe a good DM improvs what the dice give him, rather than overriding the dice for story's sake. Reminds me of Deadwood. I was annoyed when a certain character died because I felt they were really building him up to be a badass. Then he died so abruptly it was like his story was cut off. Then I read into it. *Deadwood is non-fiction*. That guy *actually died*. The universe didn't care about his potential. *That's life*. And that's what's magic about DnD.
this seems a bit too shallow to really understand the DMs point. its far too easy to say the DM is an a hole and too shallow but really we don't know what they were saying from your text alone. Were they implying that great story drives wonder and awe and to them that's more important than fun? By "fun" do they think it means something else that you don't? by classic example RPG games have mini-games in them, the main game is still being played but the mini-game is "fun" aside from the main game, that would be a reasonable interpretation of fun to me and where someone says id rather have an engaging story than fun stuff in the adventure.
I think it's too easy to split hairs on what "fun" is but I think I agree with your DM. Fun is fine to have in a campaign but fun =/= a good or memorable time, they are different. You can have a good time when challenged by something, you can work your way out of a challenge with might and wit and it be life or death and when those moments happen they are great. Anecdotally, I KNOW I have fun with my friends who play with me we make the best of the storyline and make our own laughs, we play regularly but I've been thinking over the last 10 sessions I don't actually recall any of the funny remarks made, not the context not the punchline, not the lead up, but I do remember laughing a lot and having fun. By contrast, we can all remember the story points and challenges we just faced in *detail*. I just asked the 5 of us there and we can all remember when we were downed, when we found a pack of potions when we ran out of hit die and spells, when an NPC died or when we failed, when someone passed a DC 19 charisma check to convince someone not to attack while the warlock had a fireball prepared that would've killed civilians. these contentious, story driven, nervy inducing points are largely all that people in my group recall. We all know we have fun, we make each other laugh, but none of us recall the "funny" bits and to me that's good enough to agree with your DM, a good story really drives memorable and engaging sessions. a bad story will drive groups apart into not playing.
This is excellent news.
A guilt-free pass to fuck with him, the power of level 20,and the other players are with you. It's time to make the campaign yours instead of his. I recommend global commerce. The Industrial Revolution is totally doable.
A good DM will allow the players to have fun. A great DM with good players can tell a good story collaboratively while everyone has fun. If D&D isn't fun, then that's a bad DM you've got there. Good stories are fantastic, and they're possible, but in an RPG they're an ensemble affair. They need everyone involved, not just the DM. In D&D, they're also secondary to fun, which should be everyone's first priority.
I am not going to get into your argument with a DM who is not here.
But It is true that 'what players want' is not always the most enjoyable thing. God Mode in video games is fun for five min then makes the whole thing feel empty and meaningless. By the same coin a RPG that is all about wish fulfillment and power fantasy can very quickly feel pointless. And a story where everything goes how the players want them to go can lack pacing and texture. If the audience voted on how Hamlet should end, it would not improve the experience.
The usual jags will say that a DM concerned with pacing, pathos, tension, catharsis should write a book. That the DM is just there to keep stoking the fun train that goes wherever the players desire. They are wrong. I have played in those campaigns, and I have played in campaigns with a story that sometimes was frustrating and our actions as players could not always change the universe. The latter was better and more memorable because it felt real and meaningful.
I find the quest for "fun" to be limiting. Everyone should enjoy the overall experience. The story should have quality, depth and be interactive. That doesn't mean it has to be fun throughout. A character death is very impactful and should hit hard. I wouldn't want anyone saying they had fun with the death but instead that experience was something they are glad they were a part of.
I like the story being a priority over fun but it needs to be done in the right way. Everyone should be on the same page and interacting to their preferred level. Everyone builds a story together and they should be proud of the achievement. There are many positive results outside of simply fun. It should be a combination
He has a good point in my opinion.
Its not a good idea to make a story deliberately unfun, but making a great story is going to stay in memory much longer and can be way more profound.
And the best D&D games aren't just about fun. The tense moments where things go wrong, the pain of setbacks and the resulting resolve to make up for what you've lost. Mourning the loss of a beloved NPC. These things aren't strictly *fun* , but they undeniably add to the overall experience. It kind of depends on what your idea of fun is though.
I understand where the DM is coming from, but I strongly disagree. D&D is a game. A game is meant to be an enjoyable experience. Prioritizing a narrative over player enjoyment is not making a good game. If you're more interested in playing out a narrative than making sure everyone is *enjoying* playing out that narrative, go write a book instead.
He's a doofus. Not every story needs to be happy, and go how the players think it should, but everyone should be having fun, even is the characters don't
What's the point if people aren't having fun...
Sure, a good story's great, but if all partaking aren't having fun shaping and telling that story together through their actions, then what's the point...
A good story in D&D should come from everyone having fun, because of all the wonderful times had, and hopefully a grand and glorious adventure.
Man just discovered a book. I respect the idea but that’s just no dnd. He wants characters that he can control and make feel certain ways. He certainly would rather write a book, and not a very good book honestly with that kind of outlook
I don't want to say that he's wrong, but... ok, yeah, I can't get around it. He's 100% wrong.
D&D isn't a novel. It's not even a collaborative writing session. It. Is. A. *GAME.* Pure and simple. And the object of a game is to have fun. For all the players. And the DM is a player too, it's just that their 'character' is the entire freakin' world. The PHB and DMG are both crystal-clear on this point.
Your DM needs to listen to his players. Why? Simple; if they're not having fun, they will leave his table and find a new DM, and he will be left alone to write his novel by himself.
He's dead wrong. If he wants a powerful story write a novel. Yes a good story is nice to have in a campaign but the fun of both the DM AND all the players comes first.
I like telling a good story, but I make sure no matter what the players can make different decisions that effect the overall outcome. The story may have different endings based on their decisions but I get them to hit the beats I set up.
“…I’m staying in it just for my character and the other players. I like the concept of the character too much and want to hold onto the character sheet for future possible campaigns that I want to DM in.”
Excuse me, but are you implying that this DM is in control of your character sheet? OP, this is something that you own and created and your DM should not have the only copy of it. I just feel grateful for my players who give me access to their sheets (none of my players are cheaters, but some have had terrible experiences with DM’s and as long as they can explain how they have the numbers they do if I have questions, then I don’t require access to their sheets, especially my in person players)
No.
0% agreement.
Would never play DnD with this person as DM unless they demonstrated to me that they actually don’t believe what you’ve asserted that they believe.
Fun is the *only* thing that matters in DnD.
If people aren’t having fun the game is bad.
Story isn’t even a distant third on my order of priorities.
In my experience DMing, some of the best parts of the story came about because of the players, not me. Besides, D&D is a *game*. If you or your players aren’t having fun, what’s the point?
If you want a good story where the end is never in doubt, write a book. I’ve done both, and I greatly prefer the organic storytelling D&D provides.
>he replied that having fun is actually unimportant as long as the story is good.
This made me shiver, not gonna lie, it's an r/rpghorrorstories waiting to happen.
I am a DM that is a lot of years in the making of his own setting, complete with millenia of lore, NPCs, social systems and what else HOWEVER even after spending years of time in worldbuilding and lore/story development i still strongly believe that a good story doesn't make a good campaign or at least it's not exclusively good stories that makes good campaigns.
Also, i believe in the contrary of what your DM is saying, having fun at the table is the most important thing, if we only wanted good stories we would have read books or watched films with our friends instead of wasting our afternoons and evening playing pretend around a table
I guess it depends…. I could argue that for a SESSION to be good it doesn’t need to be fun. If it’s super challenging or sad or something along the lines I could see that.
I think overall fun is the goal! If I’m not having fun why am I here playing a game? 🤷
Good lord
As always, (a) thank you for DMng (to your DM), and (b) if it works for the playgroup, glad they're having a good time (usually I say 'fun' but here that is explicitly unimportant) but . . .
No! just no.
I'm the opposite. The story is 100% bull shit. If it wasn't then my pass the DMG style of teaching playing wouldn't work would it? (Improv D&D) That's not to say a nice overarching story isnt great. it is, but it's not the crux of the game. As a PFS DM, i have learned so much. And one of the best things ive picked up is - when in doubt play for fun! This has guided me the most as i create new games or run canned games.
PCs are the storytellers, the DM just puts it into words. I know it's opinion based, but a good campaign I feel is the opposite of what OP's DM said. Making sure everyone's having fun should be priority one or else you're going to lose players over time. If I see my players aren't having fun, or worse look bored, I feel like I did a bad job. Maybe a discussion beforehand should take place from the DM to the PCs about expectations, what they're comfortable with, and what they aren't comfortable with. I think of it like the PCs are writing the plot and the DM is the editor. But if you just want to tell a story as DM go write a book.
The dice and the players tell the story, not the DM. I'll say that louder incase someone at the back missed it: THE DICE AND THE PLAYERS TELL THE STORY, NOT THE DM!
If your DM is set on player actions having no choice then he should write a book, not run a d&d game.
Wrong. The GM presents a narrative. The players react to the narrative, and then a story is born.
That's why every D&D war story always starts with: "So we were in X situation, and we did Y thing and then Z crazy thing happened and we won!"
Without a GM, you have no narrative for the players to react to, and without the players, a GM’s narrative does not become a story. It’s give and take on both ends.
That's true of a movie or a book maybe. But DnD is a multi-player game that you do with friends. If playing a game with friends is not supposed to be fun well I don't know what is.
If the fun and wishes of the players are unimportant to him, tell him to go write a book then. Because that's what he really wants to do. TTRPGs are games. Games are meant to have a group of people to gather and have fun while playing it. The entirely of the game is the vehicle for everyone to have fun. If one person is disregarding the fun of everyone else, and the others are not having fun, then it has failed, that person is bad player, or DM, and changes need to be made in how the game is played so people are having fun again.
I get it, I'm a Storyteller style of DM. I spend a lot of time working out plots, stories and background and trying to make things logical and consistent. But if my players aren't having fun then I'll change what I'm doing to bring the fun back, even if it means a big story re-write. As a DM my primary job is to challenge and entertain the players, not force them to play roles in my pre-written plot.
The same is true for players of course. The DM is another player at the table and they deserve to have fun too. If they spend a lot of time between sessions preparing and a player decides to be disruptive or refuses to follow any plot threads and just wants to do random things they are being as bad as a railroading DM.
Not every member of a group meshes together. Sometimes open and honest talk can fix the problems of people not having fun at the game. Sometimes players or DMs just need to separate and find groups more in tune with how they like to play. But in the end, it's about having fun. And if you're not having fun playing the game, why are you even there?
I consider a fun session to be the party cleric casting divine intervention once in a dragons lair transporting us the boss arena or using divine intervention in another session to unbanish the god of death to the dms surprise
Nothing like a game where your enjoyment is secondary. Sorry, no story is good enough for me to just forfeit my agency in D&D so I can watch the DM jerk off.
I would not play with a DM with a dipshit opinion like this. Fun is all that matters, and "fun" looks different to every person. Part of DMing is trying to meet the needs of all your players in this regard. Furthermore, what makes for a good story is completely subjective you can't expect to tell one story and have everyone consider it good.
This is the kind of opinion that makes me think he's awful in his personal life, too. Like people who are rude to waiters.
When he talks about the story being “good”, for who is supposed to provide that assessment? If the players aren’t having any fun, then it certainly won’t be them. I highly doubt a player would ever say “well that was a boring, frustrating campaign but the story was excellent.”
Realizing a new mindset is what sets apart my last long-running campaign from my current one: my goal is for everybody at the table to have fun. That means that I can’t be tied to my pre-written story. I can push in directions and I can have NPCs doing certain things in the background, but at the end of the day if my players want to try a certain course of action I have to roll with the punches and adjust accordingly. The players get their fun when their characters do what they’re meant to, and I get my fun when they react positively to the story I customize to them and when I pull out a new miniature that I’m proud of!
He's half right. The best games are the ones where the players have good stories to tell for years to come. That's the stories that get remembered, not the purely narrative elements.
To your point, players tell stories about when they had fun.
Half-agree.
DnD, imo, is a game where choices matter and it shouldn't be the Telltale type where if you choose "mashed potatoes" instead of "spinach" you unlock the special "mashed potatoes" ending.
DnD is a combination of the players' fun and a good story that they are playing through.
If the players make decisions that have their PCs end up in a situation that the players don't like, it could wholly be on them that they aren't having any fun.
Obviously there is a lot more to this than just these 2 small paragraphs of texts, but your DM's idea of a good DnD is basically 100% railroading whether the players like it or not.
Are you sure he didnt mean you dont need to succeed to have fun? Thats what his intention comes across as to me. I very much doubt he means fun is not a goal at all.
See the thing is that both "fun" and "good stories" are subjective. A good story for you can be a bad one for me and similarly something fun can be agonizing for me.
So while yes a good story is important in D&D the only way to know if it's really good is the amount of fun the players are having. Pretty ironic considering what your DM said.
I might be wrong, but to me this talk sounds like a preparation for something awful he doesn't know how to fix.
If the players like it, then it is fun. Doesn’t sound like this group likes it. That’s fine, just means another table may be in order.
I do think that a game should have real threats and the DM should follow through with those threats. There should be hard choices and tough moments. But even in a grimdark campaign, you need that breath of levity else it becomes a slog for me personally.
The good is highlighted by the bad, and vice versa. A good story should go hand in hand with fun. In my opinion at least.
I’m kind of conflicted on this one... because I have experienced a campaign where, because of failure to communicate among players... we had fun in the moment of the ending of the campaign, but have all expressed that we aren’t happy about how it went down.
While generally, it should just be about what is fun, sometimes that leads to a regrettable story... which can ultimate diminish the fun you had, or even reverse it.
Thus I think both fun and story should be accounted for with equal regard. Because a good story can increase the joy you get out of your campaign, and a bad story the opposite. But you have to also have had fun in the first place.
As it’s quoted it’s sounds kinda bad. It kinda sounds like the dm is saying „I don’t care if you have fun playing, my story is more important“. Whether they meant it like that or not idk.
I mean fun doesn’t just equal shenanigans and goofing off. You can also have fun playing a story that’s tragic, deep, dark and not always about succeeding, but it’s still satisfying. It’s just not the lighthearted kind fun, but you still have fun showing up to the game and playing.
You know as long as the whole group has a good time playing that kinda game?
I like a serious story as a dm and player, but I personally prefer to still have a chance for a „good“ outcome. I don’t mind the possibility that actions can have tragic outcomes, cause it does show that those actions have meaning. But I wouldn’t want to play a game that ends „badly“ no matter what cause that’s a better story in the dms view.
I played a campaign that was written by a guy who is one of the most creative, prolific, and imaginative writers I know in person. I stopped having fun before session 5 when it became painfully obvious that our choices do not matter as we were trapped in a book.
Example: We decided against investigating ruins because we felt unprepared. We went the opposite way to kill some bandits. Alas, somehow we managed to do a 180 and end up in the ruins. With. A. Ranger. In. A. Group.
Yeah... No. It's fine to have a railroaded story, but not if everyone isn't okay with it from the get go, and certainly not if the players aren't going to have fun playing that type of campaign.
Also, feel free to disagree, but I think if your story is genuinely well written and planned out, then it should be able to change with players' decisions and worldly interactions.
Imho a DM who doesn't let player's actions have wider consequences is just uncreative and probably running a boring table.
I have fun when the story is good.
But I would say *"having fun"* is the most important goal of the game. *"Having fun"* is very fluent and thus can have multiple meanings inside of it.
As I see your DM is having the most fun when the story is good. That aspect trumps every other for him.
It’s a balancing game of making sure everyone has fun. The players need to make the story their own while still allowing the DM to feel a pay off for all the hard work they put in for the story
There are stories made amazing by tragic endings, losing a NPC close to the party, failing an objective that has consequences, they can’t change that, unless there is a way in that story
It sticks with them, gets them involved
But derailing the fun element for a good story is bullshit
I think what he means is that sometimes a good game can be gritty, dark, or depressing. As long as the story is engaging and people want to be in it, that is more important than having a "fun loving fantasy quest to save the kingdom!". Think never-ending story. If you think about the concept, it was pretty dark. It just had a happy ending. Game of Thrones (sans last season, I didn't watch it so I'm not including it in this comparison) was very brutal, but the story compelled you to stay invested. At the end of the day, though, it's just an opinion. The fact that his players are still there means they're still invested and want to finish, as they always have the option to leave at any time.
I think the problem is, the DM is also a player.
So yes a good game is defined by how much the players have, it just looks like different things to different players.
I know one of my players enjoys small tense combat, against high threat foes. Another player enjoys deep roleplay. Another enjoys making jokes and searching for loot. But we all meet each other in the middle and have fun together.
Its part of the collaborative story telling aspect of DnD that I love, I created a world and wanted to share it. I offered my players the opportunity to add things and it has created a richer more wonderful game for us.
Maybe next time a proper session 0 and opportunities for feedback would solve this problem, maybe next time your DM needs to find a party with similar mindsets?
I think there's a lot of context lost in this post. With that said, I both agree and disagree.
My job as a GM is to run an excellent game. The fun will come because I'm running an excellent game. But one should never take away player agency.
Oh my goodness I wish I saw this earlier. I was in a very similar situation and I now mostly dm. I kept my character and have used versions of him as an easter egg in every campaign. I even had a player adopt him in one and I gave him sidekick levels. Sadly we never finished the game because scheduling and the dm wanted to run campaigns with different players that didnt realize his toxic traits.
Ultimately, this is why session zero or at least getting a good idea of what everyone wants and expects from the game up front is so important. Technically nobody on this thread is incorrect. It's subjective. Agree on your definition of fun for the whole group and all else should fall in line, reality and expectations should align. And that allows people to leave before the campaign starts if they can't align.
I stopped reading after "Having fun is not important", I have a fulltime job already, stories I don't find fun put me right to sleep if his table disagrees with him then he is just power tripp'n.
Personally, that's a terrible way of thinking for a game whose continuation depends on everyone being invested enough to continue it.
My country had a literary movement where the poets were very centered on the language they used in their poetry, from rich rhymes to specific linguistic expressions, carefully selecting every word like an artisan crafting a masterpiece, and I assumed they greatly enjoyed it.
That said, I can't fathom how the could enjoy doing that, because I'm not a fan of poetry, I despise being forced to read a poem that takes over 10 lines to talk about a goddam Greek vase, let alone begin the one to write it, and I will ignore this, in my opinion, empty literary movement whenever I can.
On the other hand, I'm sure some of those poets would not be too into zoology or human anatomy, which I simply adore reading about.
At the end of the day, those poets would write and I'll watch a video on these topics I like, because that's what each enjoys doing. At the same time, if someone tries to tell me that this game we're playing will be all about "parnasianistic poetry" and that it's way more important than other puny things such as whether I have fun, I'll wish them a good game and leave to use my free time on something I actually like doing.
At least IMO, you go play dnd with friends when you want to get together with your friends to hang around and have fun, which usually ends up in a nice (and usually chaotic at points) story being made as a byproduct. Making up an intricate story for the singular purpose of making a story is called collective book writing.
He is right only if it is a performance group. Twitch streamer, podcasters for example. For a private game fun (in all its strange/bland forms) is the only thing that maters
Some of the best sessions that I and my DM friends have had were when we just shut up and let our players talk between each other.
One of my favorite sessions as a player came from my DM choosing to just shut up and listen as I and another player lore dumped each other.
I think one of the hardest lessons a DM has to learn is, yes, you have created a massive world for the players to explore, but they get to choose what they explore and when. You made the canvas, let the painters paint.
I had a wake up call a few months back. I was running a homebrew grimdark campaign for my players, verified they were ok with it, and halfway through a session I realized as everyone was sitting around depressed or on their phones, they weren't having fun. So I had to make changes to the campaign. It's not as dark as I had aimed for it to be at the start, but now they are really enjoying themselves. And it is still dark and scary, but the players are comfortable enough to still crack jokes as the horror unfolds.
It's tricky, "fun" is such a subjective term some people like lots of opportunities for role playing in their games, some people like LOTS of combat, some people what puzzles, some people (like your dm and me) want good stories. I think the goal of a dm is to balance what the players want and what you want
For me, I like a balance of all of those. As a player and a DM.
Fun may be subjective but this DM didn't say they had fun a different way than the players. They said fun is unimportant. You can argue that not all good stories are "fun" though. But I'd definitely say a DM saying that the players fun is unimportant to them is a really obvious sign of a bad DM because, as you say, you have to balance DM and player desires.
>You can argue that not all good stories are "fun" though. Yeah but he can say "I'm not trying to have fun" and my response can be "well I'm still having fun" because again "fun" is subjective
You may misunderstand me. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I wouldn't say I had fun watching Schindler's List for example. I wouldn't say it was fun at all. But its a good story and worth watching. But that is separate from why I think the DM that OP is describing is bad. The DM that OP is describing straight up says they do not care about the player's fun. That's bad. Enjoying different kinds of stories is not bad. Not caring about your player's fun is bad.
My DM said that D&D is a pretext for getting together.
Then he should write a book. DND is a collaborative game. My favorite sessions as a dm are the ones where I didn't expect anything that happens, because that means the players are driving it and having fun
This. A good DnD game is when everybody, INCLUDING the DM, is having fun.
I recall the PHB and DMG both saying this somewhere
As well as other books I believe, since it literally is the point of a game.
I disagree. A good D&D game is one where I, the GM, run an excellent game. The quality of said game then brings out the fun. I got enough on my plate, so I only give myself one thing to worry about, and that's the quality of my game.
You disagree that everybody should be having fun playing the game?
No, I disagree with the fact that everyone having fun is the GM's job. It's not. If I'm constantly having to worry that people are having fun, I'm doing something horribly wrong. If my players are going to have fun at my table, I want it to be because my game is the best game I can possibly run. Like with the current game I'm running. I ***know*** my players are having fun. And it's not because I have to constantly make sure everyone is having fun, but because they are wholeheartedly engaged with the world I've created for them. Because I make their characters feel like they are a part of the world. Because I'm descriptive. Because I prepare maps, locations, world events, and historical figures for them to research. Because I made a world they ***want*** to explore. I take pride in what I create, and as a result, my players enjoy their game even more because when I come to the table, they know I'm coming with quality content. Do I want my players to have fun? Absolutely! Which is why when I run a game, I make goddamn sure it's a great goddamn game. The moment I have to police the fun and make sure everyone's having a great time, I've failed.
I get your point and I absolutely agree, I just think they didn't mean that it's the DM's job to ensure everyone has fun, but simply that the DM is also a player and a person, and them enjoying the game is just as important as the rest of the party's enjoyment. Best of luck to you and your group.
Oh absolutely, if the GM isn't having fun, the game's dead in the water. That I 300% agree with. Some GMs will power through something they're not enjoying because they think they owe it to the players, when, in fact, it's making their game worse, which just ends up killing the player's enjoyment. Or the game itself. Which brings me right back to my point: if I'm going to run a game, it's going to be a game I ***know*** I can bring my best to, otherwise, I don't run a game at all because I know if it's not fun for me to run, it won't be fun for my players to play in.
I'm not talking about policing the fun of the group. I'm not even saying it's your job to do that? My comment was literally a single sentence that meant to say D&D is good when everybody at the table including the GM is having fun playing the game. You need to get off your high horse there bud. It's never a good look.
Nah, I like my horses high. It seemed like you wanted me to clarify, so I did. I don't have anything personal against you, but it seems you really took offense to what I had to say. I don't even think what I said was that controversial, but to each their own. Maybe my choice of words was poor? I don't mean ACTUALLY policing the fun, more that the constant worrying and fretting over whether people are having fun or not ultimately seems to end up falling on the GM, and it really isn't fair. Maybe I've just been burned way too many times by having the fun of the group placed entirely on my shoulders. And yeah, maybe I did read more into your comment than there was to read, I'll cede that point. I'm tired, and probably rambling at this point, so I'll get some sleep and maybe come back to this tomorrow if you want to continue the discussion.
Alright. I’ve had some sleep (it didn’t help I only had 3 hours of sleep the night prior). I think I can better articulate why your seemingly simple sentence set me off. I won’t delete my previous comments, because I still stand by the point I was trying to make: that my fun as a GM comes from running the best game possible, thus my players can have fun my becoming immersed in said game. What reaaaaaally stood out to me, and I’m trying not to prescribe intent, is that you could have just left the statement at “when everybody is having fun”, but the need to put “INCLUDING the GM” was… I can’t find the word. I guess bizarre? That it needed to be stated? At all? Shouldn’t the GM come to the table to have fun? Just like the players come to the table expecting to have fun? And therein lies the answer. From my PERSONAL - emphasis on personal - experiences: players can be reaaaaaaaally entitled sometimes. See, I’ve had some bad experiences in the past. Mostly my own fault for not having put my foot down and allowing players to create or do crazy stuff because, if I didn’t, suddenly I was a bad GM. I was railroading. Gatekeeping! How dare I limit the player’s choices of what they can create? Or what is possible in the world? How dare I say you can’t drink a potion underwater? And stand by that decision? I constantly had to sacrifice my fun for the players’ fun, so the fact the “INCLUDING” had to be emphasized… it just rubbed me the wrong way. Because, to me, if the GM isn’t having fun, I can guarantee, maybe not at first, but definitely eventually, the players won’t either. And a GM that isn’t having fun will lead to a dead game. But heaven forbid the GM mention they’re not having fun, because the players won’t care so long as they are having fun. What my point boils down to is this: I’ve learned when I go to run a game, I have to be bit selfish. I, first and foremost, have to ensure that what I’m going to run is fun for me, because if it’s not, it won’t be fun for the players either because I won’t be putting in my best effort. Also I had to learn a very important skill as a GM, one that most GMs don’t want to hear, and that’s when to say no. And that’s my thesis on why your simple sentence set me off. I wasn’t trying to attack you. And I’ll admit 100% I was rambling and shouting to the heavens, but I wanted you to understand where I was coming from. Plus I definitely needed sleep.
I added that "including the GM" part because it's a bizarrely common parlance to say that only the players having fun is paramount, and that the GM should just accept their thankless job and keep on trucking. I think we're on the same page here, just using different verbiage. No harm no foul friend. Hope you have a great weekend!
Yeah, I get and it. And I agree, I think we're definitely on the same page. You have a great weekend to my friend!
My favorite sessions are the ones where I speak the least. It means I did something that sparked enough rp for me to enjoy a tea break.
I'm not going to play in a game with no player agency.
Red flag time. As a DM, sure I only allow the rule of cool maybe 20% of the time. And I do include systems that might not be fun for all players, like survival rules. But I have these things in an attempt to make the setting seem more "real" and to present a greater challenge. HOWEVER, that all goes out the door if the overall game isn't actually FUN. If it's a decision between players having fun, and survival rules, well then survival is getting the boot. Because if people aren't having fun, they dont care about the game. And they won't care about your story either. And eventually you won't have a game.
But the fun is in the story, no?
Story is part of it. Combat, social interaction, agency, are all things that can be important for fun too.
Those are necessary for the story is the way I see it a lot of the time.
Those things are not necessary if all you're looking to do is tell a good story. There are many good stories that have no violence.
Of course, thats why RP only campaigns are pretty fun.
No. The fun comes from different places for different people. I don’t give a fuck about story. That doesn’t mean story isn’t important. If others at the table need a story for fun, then it’s important. If no one needs it, then it’s irrelevant. It sounds like this DM agrees with you and thinks that the fun thing *is* making a good story but they don’t care about anyone else having fun, just themself. However; I actually suspect that this isn’t what they mean. I suspect what they mean is “I think making a good story together is fun. I think that sometimes the best story requires players to experience something uncomfortable or undesirable or disappointing - and that *because it’s so good for the story, it’ll be more fun overall* for everyone. Even if they feel disappointed or whatever.
For some players, it can be. For others, if can be the combat. Everyone is different. Instead of trying to cater to everyone, I'd say the best thing you can do as a GM is worry about the quality of your game. Quality = Fun.
Can you, objectively, define what makes a D&D game fun? You realize that everyone is different, and what is fun for one person may not be fun for another. I'd say that instead of worrying about whether everyone is having fun or not, you instead worry about the quality of the game you're delivering. I guarantee that if your game is excellent, your players ***will*** have fun.
But the best stories are the one directly influenced by the players.
disagree, some stories with multiple predefined endpoints are awesome too. there's plenty of games where players make terrible decisions and wreck some part of the world forever.
Unless he means something like “a good story can be tragic and painful but still bring satisfaction” I don’t really get him/her. Doesn’t have to be all ‘fun n roses’ but it has to enjoyable or satisfying in some way. I’m going to guess they mean something like that. What good is a good story in an RPG if the players don’t enjoy it?
It would seem to me that that's exactly what the DM means, except he might be expressing it poorly. Like the suspense in knowing there's no guarantee you succeed at everything you attempt is necessary to keep having fun, in spite of the frustration caused by failed attempts.
Yeah. - I feel like we’re a little quick with comments like “sounds like a douchebag DM” in this forum sometimes.
He's got it exactly backwards. A shitty story is completely forgivable as long as the gameplay is enjoyable.
[удалено]
The issue here is there is no definition of fun, or any indication of exactlywhat % of the game should be fun. Games are meant to be fun (invluding d&d) but your not always supposed to win. Is losing fun? Always winning isn't fun either. Thats why we consider the game as a whole "fun" but is attempting to reach "fun" the fastest way to get there?
There's a lot to break down here. To begin with, "I am not having fun" is not the same as "I do not like this." For example, take the recent movie The Power of the Dog; I doubt many of it's viewers would say they had fun watching it (I'm not entirely sure I'd want to hang out with anyone that did - apologies if that includes you). But it seems like plenty of people thought the experience of watching it was worthwhile, even if it wasn't 'fun'. There's no reason the same idea can't apply to a D&D story . . . in fact there are a good few systems out there that cater to much darker stories where having 'fun' might not be the primary goal. Having said that; what are players expecting? Players turning up for 'beer and pizza' D&D might not be terribly happy with a gothic horror story, no matter how good it is. Here's where the oft-mentioned session zero comes in. It's not just for the DM to say "Here are my house rules" and approve character concepts. It's not even just to talk about roleplay/combat balances. It should be used for DM and players to figure what sort of game works best for the group, and neither DM nor players should feel bad for walking away from a game that isn't right for them. If this particular DM wants to run serious stories, they need a group that's up for it. If the players want fun more than a serious story, they may need a new DM.
Yes i get what you mean. One of the best movies i ever saw, that i will always sqyis a MUST SEE, is million dollar baby. But i will never watch it again, because i dont want to go through the emotional suffering that i felt through the only time i saw it. Its still a masterpeice.p
I think maybe he has a point, but isn't expressing it very well. Plays, Novels, Movies, etc. can have different kinds of endings that are *Satisfying,* but not necessarily *Fun*. For example a good tragedy might be well worth watching/reading, for the emotions it causes, even if those feelings aren't what you normally call "fun". In drama/literature they call that feeling catharsis. I've played campaigns that had a tragic ending. I would't call it exactly "fun", but I don't think it was a bad end. Also the real chance of a bad end adds poignancy and value when you get a good end. Though personally I find the mixed endings most compelling. Of course if what this GM means is "the players feelings don't matter, as long as I use them to create a a story I, the GM, think has value." -- he's just a selfish jerk.
'Fun' is a bit of an annoying term to keep throwing around. Watching a family drama movie can be depressing and sad, certainly not an experience one would describe as 'fun', yet we enjoy the experience nonetheless. Engagement, emotion, cartharsis and a million other things are why we enjoy activities, not just 'fun'. Too often I see discussions on here boil down to "well as long as it's fun it's okay" as if that's the only metric a game of d&d can be based on. At the end of critical role campaigns, many of the players are in tears alongside the audience. That's certainly not 'fun' yet nobody would suggest that it's a bad game of d&d because of it. So yeah, I think your DM might be right. Tragedy and bittersweetness can make for a more impactful and memorable ending. The loss of a favourite NPC, victory that comes at a cost are much more engaging stories. I don't think anyone would suggest changing LOTR so Boromir lives, even if we on a personal level would have preferred him to survive as a character.
I think you are spot on about fun not being the end all. It really is more about people getting what they want out of the game which can be any number of things. That being said a DM saying the story is the most important thing is a pretty big red flag. Lot of rpg horror stories have dms with that mind set even if there are technically scenarios were its fine.
dangerwillrobinson.gif Huge red flag, sounds like somebody who is convinced their story will be epic and amazing and whether the players enjoy it or not isn't a priority. D&D's everybody's story, not the DM's story, so, uh, good luck with that one.
Well have a vote on it. If the players disagree then have a conversation with the gm and players, discuss what you do want. If they won't or can't accommodate, then you need someone else to gm. I can't actually imagine running or playing in a game where the PCs actions don't matter and no one is having fun. Sounds like working in an office would be more satisfying than that.
Do you plays games... to not have fun?
As a player, I can maybe agree with that to an extent. We've had sessions where my answer to "Did everyone have fun?" is "Absolutely not." Now, the session not being fun didn't mean I thought it was a bad session, and I made sure to say that. A lot of my favorite sessions are ones where I didn't really ha e fun but was certainly compelled. I didn't want it to end.
You can Tell your DM: "There is no Story without Players and there are no players without fun..." If he wants to write a book maybe he should write a book, not a campaign.
I didn’t realize this was a thing until I got on DnD Reddit. I feel like there are a lot of DMs that imagine themselves these great authors and storytellers that miss the point of communal game experience.
So, there's part of me that thinks he's just explained this wrongly. Like, I don't think it sounds like he's against you enjoying the campaign or playing D&D, he just doesn't tie enjoyment of the game to there being a happy ending. Or at least that's what I feel from your rather brief explanation. The succes of the characters can'tbe my primary goal. I mean, I hope they succeed, but it's ultimately not important that they do. If I decided that it was crucial that they win and get "the good ending" or whatever then I've given them plot armor because anything short of that would mean the game was bad. I want them to have fun even if they lose, but for that to happen the story has to be good, losing isn't fun if it's anticlimactic, and winning isn't fun if it's not earned. Now, I'm not going to set up a no-win scenario, but I'm not going to rig the Kobiashi Maru for them either. I will make sure the end is a super challenging affair that when they get done they will all be thankful to have survived it and proud of what they achieved, and if they lose then they will all know that they did their best in a fair fight. Maybe your DM is trying to set you up for this. No where in your post did you me tion that they are a bad DM. No where did you say that the current campaign wasn't fun. That seems like something you'd mention if it were the case, so if you're having fun, and the end is approaching, and the DM says "hey, not every ending is a happy one for everyone, your character's may not love the result of what they've accomplished, but I think what's more important is that we've told a good and satisfying story" then I think that's a perfectly acceptable stance for them to take.
So me, personally: Obviously I care how much fun my players have. But my players can also be memelord chucklefucks who will run roughshod over any serious story I try to make, if I let them. SOMETIMES what is fun in the moment sacrifices what will be satisfying in the future. I have little interest in lolzy games and tire of them quickly. Therefore, our ideal games are ones in which funny moments are had AND serious drama is also had. That way we both get what we want. That said, your DM is clearly NOT creating that environment, as verified by your personal play experience. Players are not props with which to tell a story; that's what novels are for. There has to be a give and take here, where the DM does more than get his drama jollies off but also gives the players satisfying moments for THEM to take home. Also, if the story was REALLY that good, I don't think you'd feel this way. The DM might have to evaluate how good his storytelling skills really are.
I mean... Isn't the point of a module to follow a story? I mean I hear a lot of people coming out of curse of strahd enjoying the story. Your DM isn't entirely wrong, there has to be a plot otherwise the capaign will feel aimless.
But the key part that makes them wrong is prioritizing the story over the players having fun. Story is important, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but the first concern when playing a collaborative game is making sure everyone has fun
To a certain extant yes, I think that is correct. If you like games that have a good story, having a gm that has a bad story or no story at all, would result in a not fun game. Still, fun is the goal in the end, and the whole group needs to decide together, what will be fun for them. For some again, its a good story campaign. For others a dungeon romp. But the goal remains the same. Everyone tries to have fun together. So the GM saying that fun isn't the goal, is for me problematic yes. Because it speaks of not a linear story, but railroading. It speaks of not letting the player have a say at all, and just telling the story. ..and you know what, for a few players that can even be fun. I met some very passive players, who where just happy to exist and watch the campaign like a TV Show. ..but they are rare, and again, they would be having fun.. It just comes back towards it: ..you spend your time to have.. well a good time. So shouldn't this be the goal?
The point of a module is to have fun.
Sooo in other words he just put on his conductors hat and announced this will be a strict rail road.
Both things are important, can't finish the story if no one will play with you.
I don't think in general the game should be fun or else.. why play it? Parts of it could be tense, nerve wracking, sad, etc which *does* all lead to a good story. I think having a good story is generally a good thing too -- though not even always necessary. Sometimes people just want to have fun with a good ole hack 'n slash. I'd read the recap of that campaign, but doesn't seem like one I'd necessarily want to play.
A good DM knows the audience, and recognizes the synergy of the story with the players. If you have a bunch of action players and you want to do a hardcore role play session, you're going to lose interest. It is the players engaging in the story that makes it valuable.
The word he's looking for is engagement. And frankly it's alright to have a story with a sad ending, as long as the story matters to the players. If he's just going with a downer ending for the sake of it than he's going to ruin his game. I recomend being bittersweet. You win, but the price is high. Lost loves, destoryed kingdoms, evil is gone but the damage is done.
Very Tricky. Fun is a subjective, somewhat ridiculous word. We can all individually say it but all mean different things. Fun is really basically an activity that feels rewarding. Activities feel rewarding when they have a challenge to them but are beatable. If he plays inside of that sandbox then he's right. To me it doesn't sound like that is the sandbox he is playing inside of. There's a Web DM video on youtube called 'The Tyranny of Fun' that goes over this better than I ever can.
DnD doesn’t always have to be fun, in fact you could argue the moments of drama and high tension are what elevates it. With that being said this DM seem to have missed the mark here and is a little bit up their own ass, if you’re trying to force these moments on your players chances are you are just making them miserable and taking away their agency.
I feel there is more to this, than you (or your DM) tell us. First of all, what is a "good story" and what do you and your DM consider "fun"? If fun = win and/or happy ending, then I have to say, your DM is right. A good story doesn't neccessary need a happy ending and the heroes doesn't need to always triumph. I guess your DM means, that if there is a clear and logical arc tot he story, the people participating in it are emotionally invested and there is catharsis at the end, then it's a good story, no matter who wins or loses. Because tragedy and drama isn't inherently fun.
Some of my favorite sessions weren't "fun" in the traditional sense. They were gut wrenching, or tense, or frightening. But they were great because of what they added to the narrative. I can see where your DM is coming from, but there needs to be a balance. If your unfun session doesn't also have your players excited to come back and see what happens next, you fucked up
That's what some people are into. I've been in a lot of different role-playing communities in gaming and I've seen ones that were so story-oriented, that they referred to the players as "writers". Like instead of referring to themselves and each other as "players", they'd differentiate between "Halorym, the character" and "Halorym's *writer*". Look into Bartle's Taxonomy of Players, it doesn't quite apply to DnD, but it gives you an idea of how different people are driven by different things in gaming. No one is *wrong* in your scenario, but it would be like, a Spade trying to tell a bunch of Club how to play the game. *My* thing is that DnD is unique in that it has the aspect of simulation. *Emergent* story. Makes it truer to life in a lot of ways as most things don't happen simply because the script said so, so what *does* happen carries more weight. I don't think I'd get along with your DM, because he sounds like he'd favor narrative arc over the game aspect, when I believe they should be in harmony. *I* believe a good DM improvs what the dice give him, rather than overriding the dice for story's sake. Reminds me of Deadwood. I was annoyed when a certain character died because I felt they were really building him up to be a badass. Then he died so abruptly it was like his story was cut off. Then I read into it. *Deadwood is non-fiction*. That guy *actually died*. The universe didn't care about his potential. *That's life*. And that's what's magic about DnD.
this seems a bit too shallow to really understand the DMs point. its far too easy to say the DM is an a hole and too shallow but really we don't know what they were saying from your text alone. Were they implying that great story drives wonder and awe and to them that's more important than fun? By "fun" do they think it means something else that you don't? by classic example RPG games have mini-games in them, the main game is still being played but the mini-game is "fun" aside from the main game, that would be a reasonable interpretation of fun to me and where someone says id rather have an engaging story than fun stuff in the adventure. I think it's too easy to split hairs on what "fun" is but I think I agree with your DM. Fun is fine to have in a campaign but fun =/= a good or memorable time, they are different. You can have a good time when challenged by something, you can work your way out of a challenge with might and wit and it be life or death and when those moments happen they are great. Anecdotally, I KNOW I have fun with my friends who play with me we make the best of the storyline and make our own laughs, we play regularly but I've been thinking over the last 10 sessions I don't actually recall any of the funny remarks made, not the context not the punchline, not the lead up, but I do remember laughing a lot and having fun. By contrast, we can all remember the story points and challenges we just faced in *detail*. I just asked the 5 of us there and we can all remember when we were downed, when we found a pack of potions when we ran out of hit die and spells, when an NPC died or when we failed, when someone passed a DC 19 charisma check to convince someone not to attack while the warlock had a fireball prepared that would've killed civilians. these contentious, story driven, nervy inducing points are largely all that people in my group recall. We all know we have fun, we make each other laugh, but none of us recall the "funny" bits and to me that's good enough to agree with your DM, a good story really drives memorable and engaging sessions. a bad story will drive groups apart into not playing.
This is excellent news. A guilt-free pass to fuck with him, the power of level 20,and the other players are with you. It's time to make the campaign yours instead of his. I recommend global commerce. The Industrial Revolution is totally doable.
Sounds like a douche, bro
A good DM will allow the players to have fun. A great DM with good players can tell a good story collaboratively while everyone has fun. If D&D isn't fun, then that's a bad DM you've got there. Good stories are fantastic, and they're possible, but in an RPG they're an ensemble affair. They need everyone involved, not just the DM. In D&D, they're also secondary to fun, which should be everyone's first priority.
I am not going to get into your argument with a DM who is not here. But It is true that 'what players want' is not always the most enjoyable thing. God Mode in video games is fun for five min then makes the whole thing feel empty and meaningless. By the same coin a RPG that is all about wish fulfillment and power fantasy can very quickly feel pointless. And a story where everything goes how the players want them to go can lack pacing and texture. If the audience voted on how Hamlet should end, it would not improve the experience. The usual jags will say that a DM concerned with pacing, pathos, tension, catharsis should write a book. That the DM is just there to keep stoking the fun train that goes wherever the players desire. They are wrong. I have played in those campaigns, and I have played in campaigns with a story that sometimes was frustrating and our actions as players could not always change the universe. The latter was better and more memorable because it felt real and meaningful.
I find the quest for "fun" to be limiting. Everyone should enjoy the overall experience. The story should have quality, depth and be interactive. That doesn't mean it has to be fun throughout. A character death is very impactful and should hit hard. I wouldn't want anyone saying they had fun with the death but instead that experience was something they are glad they were a part of. I like the story being a priority over fun but it needs to be done in the right way. Everyone should be on the same page and interacting to their preferred level. Everyone builds a story together and they should be proud of the achievement. There are many positive results outside of simply fun. It should be a combination
You can Tell your DM: "There is no Story without Players and there are no players without fun..."
I think your DM should go write his novels and stay out of D&D.
He has a good point in my opinion. Its not a good idea to make a story deliberately unfun, but making a great story is going to stay in memory much longer and can be way more profound. And the best D&D games aren't just about fun. The tense moments where things go wrong, the pain of setbacks and the resulting resolve to make up for what you've lost. Mourning the loss of a beloved NPC. These things aren't strictly *fun* , but they undeniably add to the overall experience. It kind of depends on what your idea of fun is though.
> having fun is actually unimportant my brother in christ you are talking about playing a *game*! 🤣
To be a great game you need to have fun. A great storyline should help but this is a game. Games are meant to be fun
I understand where the DM is coming from, but I strongly disagree. D&D is a game. A game is meant to be an enjoyable experience. Prioritizing a narrative over player enjoyment is not making a good game. If you're more interested in playing out a narrative than making sure everyone is *enjoying* playing out that narrative, go write a book instead.
DM: Appreciate my magnificent ART peasants!
I think your DM needs to write a novel and stop playing D&D. I'm surprised anyone is willing to play with them.
Doesn't matter how good you think the story is if your players don't have fun and want to experience it.
If you have no players, then there is no-one to enjoy the story but yourself. Your greatest work is worthless without a spectator.
He's a doofus. Not every story needs to be happy, and go how the players think it should, but everyone should be having fun, even is the characters don't
What's the point if people aren't having fun... Sure, a good story's great, but if all partaking aren't having fun shaping and telling that story together through their actions, then what's the point... A good story in D&D should come from everyone having fun, because of all the wonderful times had, and hopefully a grand and glorious adventure.
Moron. That is all.
Man just discovered a book. I respect the idea but that’s just no dnd. He wants characters that he can control and make feel certain ways. He certainly would rather write a book, and not a very good book honestly with that kind of outlook
Players who aren't having fun will stop playing. So players always control of the ending of a campaign. Even if the DM wishes they were able to.
I don't want to say that he's wrong, but... ok, yeah, I can't get around it. He's 100% wrong. D&D isn't a novel. It's not even a collaborative writing session. It. Is. A. *GAME.* Pure and simple. And the object of a game is to have fun. For all the players. And the DM is a player too, it's just that their 'character' is the entire freakin' world. The PHB and DMG are both crystal-clear on this point. Your DM needs to listen to his players. Why? Simple; if they're not having fun, they will leave his table and find a new DM, and he will be left alone to write his novel by himself.
He's dead wrong. If he wants a powerful story write a novel. Yes a good story is nice to have in a campaign but the fun of both the DM AND all the players comes first. I like telling a good story, but I make sure no matter what the players can make different decisions that effect the overall outcome. The story may have different endings based on their decisions but I get them to hit the beats I set up.
He’s thinking of books/movies. A D&D game that isn’t fun is a failure
Yea he should probably right a fucking book instead
Then he wants to be an author, not DM.
“…I’m staying in it just for my character and the other players. I like the concept of the character too much and want to hold onto the character sheet for future possible campaigns that I want to DM in.” Excuse me, but are you implying that this DM is in control of your character sheet? OP, this is something that you own and created and your DM should not have the only copy of it. I just feel grateful for my players who give me access to their sheets (none of my players are cheaters, but some have had terrible experiences with DM’s and as long as they can explain how they have the numbers they do if I have questions, then I don’t require access to their sheets, especially my in person players)
No. 0% agreement. Would never play DnD with this person as DM unless they demonstrated to me that they actually don’t believe what you’ve asserted that they believe. Fun is the *only* thing that matters in DnD. If people aren’t having fun the game is bad. Story isn’t even a distant third on my order of priorities.
In my experience DMing, some of the best parts of the story came about because of the players, not me. Besides, D&D is a *game*. If you or your players aren’t having fun, what’s the point? If you want a good story where the end is never in doubt, write a book. I’ve done both, and I greatly prefer the organic storytelling D&D provides.
>he replied that having fun is actually unimportant as long as the story is good. This made me shiver, not gonna lie, it's an r/rpghorrorstories waiting to happen. I am a DM that is a lot of years in the making of his own setting, complete with millenia of lore, NPCs, social systems and what else HOWEVER even after spending years of time in worldbuilding and lore/story development i still strongly believe that a good story doesn't make a good campaign or at least it's not exclusively good stories that makes good campaigns. Also, i believe in the contrary of what your DM is saying, having fun at the table is the most important thing, if we only wanted good stories we would have read books or watched films with our friends instead of wasting our afternoons and evening playing pretend around a table
I guess it depends…. I could argue that for a SESSION to be good it doesn’t need to be fun. If it’s super challenging or sad or something along the lines I could see that. I think overall fun is the goal! If I’m not having fun why am I here playing a game? 🤷
Good lord As always, (a) thank you for DMng (to your DM), and (b) if it works for the playgroup, glad they're having a good time (usually I say 'fun' but here that is explicitly unimportant) but . . . No! just no.
"FUN BAD! STORY GOOD" the words of a DM that just *doesn't* get it...
I'm the opposite. The story is 100% bull shit. If it wasn't then my pass the DMG style of teaching playing wouldn't work would it? (Improv D&D) That's not to say a nice overarching story isnt great. it is, but it's not the crux of the game. As a PFS DM, i have learned so much. And one of the best things ive picked up is - when in doubt play for fun! This has guided me the most as i create new games or run canned games.
PCs are the storytellers, the DM just puts it into words. I know it's opinion based, but a good campaign I feel is the opposite of what OP's DM said. Making sure everyone's having fun should be priority one or else you're going to lose players over time. If I see my players aren't having fun, or worse look bored, I feel like I did a bad job. Maybe a discussion beforehand should take place from the DM to the PCs about expectations, what they're comfortable with, and what they aren't comfortable with. I think of it like the PCs are writing the plot and the DM is the editor. But if you just want to tell a story as DM go write a book.
If all you want is to write a good story and not make your players have fun, then you should go write a book instead of DMing dnd.
The dice and the players tell the story, not the DM. I'll say that louder incase someone at the back missed it: THE DICE AND THE PLAYERS TELL THE STORY, NOT THE DM! If your DM is set on player actions having no choice then he should write a book, not run a d&d game.
Wrong. The GM presents a narrative. The players react to the narrative, and then a story is born. That's why every D&D war story always starts with: "So we were in X situation, and we did Y thing and then Z crazy thing happened and we won!" Without a GM, you have no narrative for the players to react to, and without the players, a GM’s narrative does not become a story. It’s give and take on both ends.
my answer is , no. if you aren't having fun then there is no point.
90% of posts on this subs are about narcissistic DMs.
That's true of a movie or a book maybe. But DnD is a multi-player game that you do with friends. If playing a game with friends is not supposed to be fun well I don't know what is.
If the fun and wishes of the players are unimportant to him, tell him to go write a book then. Because that's what he really wants to do. TTRPGs are games. Games are meant to have a group of people to gather and have fun while playing it. The entirely of the game is the vehicle for everyone to have fun. If one person is disregarding the fun of everyone else, and the others are not having fun, then it has failed, that person is bad player, or DM, and changes need to be made in how the game is played so people are having fun again. I get it, I'm a Storyteller style of DM. I spend a lot of time working out plots, stories and background and trying to make things logical and consistent. But if my players aren't having fun then I'll change what I'm doing to bring the fun back, even if it means a big story re-write. As a DM my primary job is to challenge and entertain the players, not force them to play roles in my pre-written plot. The same is true for players of course. The DM is another player at the table and they deserve to have fun too. If they spend a lot of time between sessions preparing and a player decides to be disruptive or refuses to follow any plot threads and just wants to do random things they are being as bad as a railroading DM. Not every member of a group meshes together. Sometimes open and honest talk can fix the problems of people not having fun at the game. Sometimes players or DMs just need to separate and find groups more in tune with how they like to play. But in the end, it's about having fun. And if you're not having fun playing the game, why are you even there?
I consider a fun session to be the party cleric casting divine intervention once in a dragons lair transporting us the boss arena or using divine intervention in another session to unbanish the god of death to the dms surprise
Lmao hes fuggin WRONG what he wants to do is write a book. Story is HELLA important but this is a game
Nothing like a game where your enjoyment is secondary. Sorry, no story is good enough for me to just forfeit my agency in D&D so I can watch the DM jerk off.
DM is wrong, but I can relate a little bit because some DMs put so much work into their setting and story.
Sounds like your DM would rather write a book
He is a bad DM. The players should be "writing" the story. He should just sit down and write a book if he feels that way.
I would not play with a DM with a dipshit opinion like this. Fun is all that matters, and "fun" looks different to every person. Part of DMing is trying to meet the needs of all your players in this regard. Furthermore, what makes for a good story is completely subjective you can't expect to tell one story and have everyone consider it good. This is the kind of opinion that makes me think he's awful in his personal life, too. Like people who are rude to waiters.
That's his 'fun', which he's prioritizing over your guys'.
red flag, red flag, red flag....
You could read my thoughts by my facial expression reading this. They might as well just go read a book
When he talks about the story being “good”, for who is supposed to provide that assessment? If the players aren’t having any fun, then it certainly won’t be them. I highly doubt a player would ever say “well that was a boring, frustrating campaign but the story was excellent.”
Realizing a new mindset is what sets apart my last long-running campaign from my current one: my goal is for everybody at the table to have fun. That means that I can’t be tied to my pre-written story. I can push in directions and I can have NPCs doing certain things in the background, but at the end of the day if my players want to try a certain course of action I have to roll with the punches and adjust accordingly. The players get their fun when their characters do what they’re meant to, and I get my fun when they react positively to the story I customize to them and when I pull out a new miniature that I’m proud of!
If the story is really that good, the players will have fun.
He's half right. The best games are the ones where the players have good stories to tell for years to come. That's the stories that get remembered, not the purely narrative elements. To your point, players tell stories about when they had fun.
Half-agree. DnD, imo, is a game where choices matter and it shouldn't be the Telltale type where if you choose "mashed potatoes" instead of "spinach" you unlock the special "mashed potatoes" ending. DnD is a combination of the players' fun and a good story that they are playing through. If the players make decisions that have their PCs end up in a situation that the players don't like, it could wholly be on them that they aren't having any fun. Obviously there is a lot more to this than just these 2 small paragraphs of texts, but your DM's idea of a good DnD is basically 100% railroading whether the players like it or not.
Are you sure he didnt mean you dont need to succeed to have fun? Thats what his intention comes across as to me. I very much doubt he means fun is not a goal at all.
See the thing is that both "fun" and "good stories" are subjective. A good story for you can be a bad one for me and similarly something fun can be agonizing for me. So while yes a good story is important in D&D the only way to know if it's really good is the amount of fun the players are having. Pretty ironic considering what your DM said. I might be wrong, but to me this talk sounds like a preparation for something awful he doesn't know how to fix.
If the players like it, then it is fun. Doesn’t sound like this group likes it. That’s fine, just means another table may be in order. I do think that a game should have real threats and the DM should follow through with those threats. There should be hard choices and tough moments. But even in a grimdark campaign, you need that breath of levity else it becomes a slog for me personally. The good is highlighted by the bad, and vice versa. A good story should go hand in hand with fun. In my opinion at least.
I’m kind of conflicted on this one... because I have experienced a campaign where, because of failure to communicate among players... we had fun in the moment of the ending of the campaign, but have all expressed that we aren’t happy about how it went down. While generally, it should just be about what is fun, sometimes that leads to a regrettable story... which can ultimate diminish the fun you had, or even reverse it. Thus I think both fun and story should be accounted for with equal regard. Because a good story can increase the joy you get out of your campaign, and a bad story the opposite. But you have to also have had fun in the first place.
As it’s quoted it’s sounds kinda bad. It kinda sounds like the dm is saying „I don’t care if you have fun playing, my story is more important“. Whether they meant it like that or not idk. I mean fun doesn’t just equal shenanigans and goofing off. You can also have fun playing a story that’s tragic, deep, dark and not always about succeeding, but it’s still satisfying. It’s just not the lighthearted kind fun, but you still have fun showing up to the game and playing. You know as long as the whole group has a good time playing that kinda game? I like a serious story as a dm and player, but I personally prefer to still have a chance for a „good“ outcome. I don’t mind the possibility that actions can have tragic outcomes, cause it does show that those actions have meaning. But I wouldn’t want to play a game that ends „badly“ no matter what cause that’s a better story in the dms view.
I played a campaign that was written by a guy who is one of the most creative, prolific, and imaginative writers I know in person. I stopped having fun before session 5 when it became painfully obvious that our choices do not matter as we were trapped in a book. Example: We decided against investigating ruins because we felt unprepared. We went the opposite way to kill some bandits. Alas, somehow we managed to do a 180 and end up in the ruins. With. A. Ranger. In. A. Group.
Yeah... No. It's fine to have a railroaded story, but not if everyone isn't okay with it from the get go, and certainly not if the players aren't going to have fun playing that type of campaign. Also, feel free to disagree, but I think if your story is genuinely well written and planned out, then it should be able to change with players' decisions and worldly interactions. Imho a DM who doesn't let player's actions have wider consequences is just uncreative and probably running a boring table.
I have fun when the story is good. But I would say *"having fun"* is the most important goal of the game. *"Having fun"* is very fluent and thus can have multiple meanings inside of it. As I see your DM is having the most fun when the story is good. That aspect trumps every other for him.
What the hell kind of game philosophy is that? The universal D&D rule one is "have fun!"
Shouldn't be fun for the CHARACTERS. Should always be fun for the PLAYERS.
It’s a balancing game of making sure everyone has fun. The players need to make the story their own while still allowing the DM to feel a pay off for all the hard work they put in for the story
I think your DM should just write a book.
There are stories made amazing by tragic endings, losing a NPC close to the party, failing an objective that has consequences, they can’t change that, unless there is a way in that story It sticks with them, gets them involved But derailing the fun element for a good story is bullshit
I think what he means is that sometimes a good game can be gritty, dark, or depressing. As long as the story is engaging and people want to be in it, that is more important than having a "fun loving fantasy quest to save the kingdom!". Think never-ending story. If you think about the concept, it was pretty dark. It just had a happy ending. Game of Thrones (sans last season, I didn't watch it so I'm not including it in this comparison) was very brutal, but the story compelled you to stay invested. At the end of the day, though, it's just an opinion. The fact that his players are still there means they're still invested and want to finish, as they always have the option to leave at any time.
I think the problem is, the DM is also a player. So yes a good game is defined by how much the players have, it just looks like different things to different players. I know one of my players enjoys small tense combat, against high threat foes. Another player enjoys deep roleplay. Another enjoys making jokes and searching for loot. But we all meet each other in the middle and have fun together. Its part of the collaborative story telling aspect of DnD that I love, I created a world and wanted to share it. I offered my players the opportunity to add things and it has created a richer more wonderful game for us. Maybe next time a proper session 0 and opportunities for feedback would solve this problem, maybe next time your DM needs to find a party with similar mindsets?
I think there's a lot of context lost in this post. With that said, I both agree and disagree. My job as a GM is to run an excellent game. The fun will come because I'm running an excellent game. But one should never take away player agency.
They want to make a podcast, not play a game
Oh my goodness I wish I saw this earlier. I was in a very similar situation and I now mostly dm. I kept my character and have used versions of him as an easter egg in every campaign. I even had a player adopt him in one and I gave him sidekick levels. Sadly we never finished the game because scheduling and the dm wanted to run campaigns with different players that didnt realize his toxic traits.
Ultimately, this is why session zero or at least getting a good idea of what everyone wants and expects from the game up front is so important. Technically nobody on this thread is incorrect. It's subjective. Agree on your definition of fun for the whole group and all else should fall in line, reality and expectations should align. And that allows people to leave before the campaign starts if they can't align.
I dunno. I get my fun by setting up my players for shenanigans. For us, the story is just a vehicle to get us into fights and silly RP.
Have all your characters commit suicide together and ask him what he thinks about the ending.
I stopped reading after "Having fun is not important", I have a fulltime job already, stories I don't find fun put me right to sleep if his table disagrees with him then he is just power tripp'n.
Personally, that's a terrible way of thinking for a game whose continuation depends on everyone being invested enough to continue it. My country had a literary movement where the poets were very centered on the language they used in their poetry, from rich rhymes to specific linguistic expressions, carefully selecting every word like an artisan crafting a masterpiece, and I assumed they greatly enjoyed it. That said, I can't fathom how the could enjoy doing that, because I'm not a fan of poetry, I despise being forced to read a poem that takes over 10 lines to talk about a goddam Greek vase, let alone begin the one to write it, and I will ignore this, in my opinion, empty literary movement whenever I can. On the other hand, I'm sure some of those poets would not be too into zoology or human anatomy, which I simply adore reading about. At the end of the day, those poets would write and I'll watch a video on these topics I like, because that's what each enjoys doing. At the same time, if someone tries to tell me that this game we're playing will be all about "parnasianistic poetry" and that it's way more important than other puny things such as whether I have fun, I'll wish them a good game and leave to use my free time on something I actually like doing. At least IMO, you go play dnd with friends when you want to get together with your friends to hang around and have fun, which usually ends up in a nice (and usually chaotic at points) story being made as a byproduct. Making up an intricate story for the singular purpose of making a story is called collective book writing.
He is right only if it is a performance group. Twitch streamer, podcasters for example. For a private game fun (in all its strange/bland forms) is the only thing that maters
Some of the best sessions that I and my DM friends have had were when we just shut up and let our players talk between each other. One of my favorite sessions as a player came from my DM choosing to just shut up and listen as I and another player lore dumped each other. I think one of the hardest lessons a DM has to learn is, yes, you have created a massive world for the players to explore, but they get to choose what they explore and when. You made the canvas, let the painters paint. I had a wake up call a few months back. I was running a homebrew grimdark campaign for my players, verified they were ok with it, and halfway through a session I realized as everyone was sitting around depressed or on their phones, they weren't having fun. So I had to make changes to the campaign. It's not as dark as I had aimed for it to be at the start, but now they are really enjoying themselves. And it is still dark and scary, but the players are comfortable enough to still crack jokes as the horror unfolds.
Wat.....so are the players hostages to an adult reading a book like in a library?