I couldn’t let this comment pass without making it a topic of discussion here on TT. It’s from Topher on the HackMaster forums:
There are two types of GMs: Those who believe their players really know what they want and those who run a good game.
Topher was responding to an article by Jeff Rients entitled How to Awesome-Up Your Players, which I linked to on TT.
This comment comes from a thread on the HM forums called How NOT to run a game. Jeff is (no surprise) taking the criticism very well, and since I couldn’t disagree more with Greylond’s sentiment in the opening post (“Should have been titled, “How to Wuss-Up your campaign”.“) it’s interesting to see an alternate perspective.
“The GM knows best” smacks of “Daddy knows best” to me, hence the title of this post. There are cases when the GM does know best, but there are plenty of times when that’s just true at all — partly because players get a flashlight while the GM gets a 150 watt bulb.
What do you think?
While I agree with Jeff’s formulation, Topher’s probably right for his group.
After playing in games where the GM keeps you scrounging for copper pieces, you’ll probably ask for power and wealth if given your head. Topher has probably conditioned his players to appreciate scarcity. Characters who start with the sun and fight for the moon are great… unless their players used to scratching for a dirt clod, and feel content (or even overwhelmed) when given the sun.
Hopefully, players who experience both styles will appreciate each in their place.
Over 20+ years of GMing, I’ve come to let the players determine where the game goes. It’s not necessarily that they give me a laundry list of things that they want, but I *listen* to them. I pay attention to the directions their characters develop into and what issues they seem to want to deal with. When they come up with ideas I incorporate them as seamlessly as I can — they often think that I’ve planned it all ahead of time!
I can take or leave this one. I think the basic underlying issue is DM vs Player input into the game, yes?
While I think it’s good to allow players as much input into the game as possible, we have to keep in mind that DMing is an art, and like any other art it’s the artist (for the purposes of this analogy, the DM) who knows it best, so there will be times when a player wants something that sounds cool to them (and indeed it may be) but that when the DM sees it from the higher prospective, it causes problems or doesn’t fit well. True, there’s always the option of re-working everything the player’s desire messes up, but there’s only just so many times that it’s efficient use of resources to re-work everything.
Oddly, I agree SOMEWHAT with Topher’s statement in the linked post. Asking ahead of time then sticking with the program is IMO, a good idea. If the game has a theme and the players wanna really deviate from that theme, but wanna continue with that game, then you know, it’s time to make the decision to either figure out if the new stuff might work.. or to ask the players if they might want to start a new game where that idea is definitely OK and leave the current one’s theme unchanged.
At the same time, I like the approach of Jeff too. Given the right campaign (like say.. a game where the PCs are 10th level at start and really ARE the baddest mofos around) having the origin of a magical sword be in the player’s control to a large degree is fine, if they keep things ‘in tone’. Jeff’s game is very eclectic. In a more tightly themed game, things might need a little more DM/PC negotiation, but being appropriately loose is a good thing.
When I think about the idea of me (as the GM) knowing best, what pops into my head are the times that I was way off the mark. Something I thought was working well, for example, wasn’t working at all for one or more players — and until they spoke up, I didn’t pick up on it.
For me, that’s what invalidates the “always” aspect of the GM knowing best — in my experience, it’s categorically impossible to know best all the time. 😉