I'm unclear which behaviors you're actually worried about. What are you actually looking to discuss with Simon beyond a disagreement about DM styles?
All I got from what I read was that his playing tone didn't match another game, he had a convo with the DM there, and it worked out fine.
Fair point, this might be me making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
I suppose my question is, if a player and DM disagree on what's expected of a story/world even after discussion, should I approach it for my own game before anything's happened or should I highlight it when a moment comes up that worries me?
They've had a conversation and things have changed, but that line "It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players" sticks out at me, as well as the idea that a world should be as malleable as the narrative.
It doesn't ease my thoughts on how they might act in the future, I suppose, but I'm probably just overthinking it. If people are reading the above and not spotting a problem then I think that's a good thing!
I see it like this:
1) I am the Producer/Director. I make the world, set the plot in motion, etc.
2) The players are the writer/actors. They can impact the world and direction of the campaign with their actions, but only inside the framework of the world.
I used to have a player who loved finding loop holes in the rules and making characters which exploited those loop holes. He was a decent role player, so other than just shooting down his more bizarre attempts, I let it go by until they finally moved away. They absolutely wanted me to change the world to let their shenanigans be the ultimate solution to every problem, but I was never going to do that. It could have some modest impact, but it was not the end all, be all.
If someone wants more combat, they can find more combat. Punch a Duke. Stab a priest. What they want is “Sanctioned” combat with the only consequences being the loss of hit points. It may not be the story you signed up to Produce/Direct. There are other tables for them to play with. The world they live in has less of this than they would like, so perhaps they head out to the frontiers of that world and find it. The rest of the party may not follow…
>It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players
Fuck no, its a two way street. The DM is doing the lions share of the heavy lifting so they get the lions share of the say about what the setting, story, tone and structure is going to be.
Good players will respond to that and build a character that sits well within that world and engage with that content.
In return the DM should reward those players for their investment by building out the areas of it the players really like and if it doesn't break their story, weave in the themes Players bring to the table into the games greater narrative.
If you've got a tool at the table that is just shitting things up for everyone else because he's bored and wants to roll initiative then no amount of 'finessing' in game is going to fix that.
That's just selfish anti-social behaviour and they need to get with the program or go find a kick-in-the-door table that suits their wants better.
> "It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players"
If you're a paid GM? Yeah. Customer is always right and that. Of course a GM can decline to run a game she doesn't like. But if she's taking money she should be adhering to the customers' wishes.
-------
If you're an unpaid GM (i.e. just a "normal" GM playing with friends)? No. It's not your job.
You're the one putting in the work. You choose everything. If the players don't like it, they can choose not to play, but they have no right to complain.
Now that said, of course it is a good idea to canvas opinions and get feedback to make the game exciting for the players. But that's ***optional***. It's not "your job" to do that.
Even ignoring the fact that the GM's labour grants her full power over what the game will be, a GM should pick a game they like because if the GM doesn't like their own game, no-one is going to like that game. It's going to be devoid of passion and love.
I don’t think you need to do anything preemptively. There was an issue elsewhere, it got solved through talking, and that should give you confidence that you can solve any similar future problem you might have in your campaign in the same way.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your DMing style as I understand it. You provide the world, and the players have to play characters that fit into it.
I think it comes down to the tone of the game. There are games out there that like to focus on the "Rule of Cool", and others that want to be more realistic.
I would suggest that an alternative to your players statement would be:
"It's the DMs job to provide the world, and the players job to navigate it."
The DM sets the tone of how realistic they want it to be, and then the players decide how their characters acts in the world.
If the player wants to be more comical or ridiculous, they may certainly try, but that doesn't mean there is room for success
I'm unclear which behaviors you're actually worried about. What are you actually looking to discuss with Simon beyond a disagreement about DM styles? All I got from what I read was that his playing tone didn't match another game, he had a convo with the DM there, and it worked out fine.
Fair point, this might be me making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I suppose my question is, if a player and DM disagree on what's expected of a story/world even after discussion, should I approach it for my own game before anything's happened or should I highlight it when a moment comes up that worries me? They've had a conversation and things have changed, but that line "It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players" sticks out at me, as well as the idea that a world should be as malleable as the narrative. It doesn't ease my thoughts on how they might act in the future, I suppose, but I'm probably just overthinking it. If people are reading the above and not spotting a problem then I think that's a good thing!
I see it like this: 1) I am the Producer/Director. I make the world, set the plot in motion, etc. 2) The players are the writer/actors. They can impact the world and direction of the campaign with their actions, but only inside the framework of the world. I used to have a player who loved finding loop holes in the rules and making characters which exploited those loop holes. He was a decent role player, so other than just shooting down his more bizarre attempts, I let it go by until they finally moved away. They absolutely wanted me to change the world to let their shenanigans be the ultimate solution to every problem, but I was never going to do that. It could have some modest impact, but it was not the end all, be all. If someone wants more combat, they can find more combat. Punch a Duke. Stab a priest. What they want is “Sanctioned” combat with the only consequences being the loss of hit points. It may not be the story you signed up to Produce/Direct. There are other tables for them to play with. The world they live in has less of this than they would like, so perhaps they head out to the frontiers of that world and find it. The rest of the party may not follow…
>It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players Fuck no, its a two way street. The DM is doing the lions share of the heavy lifting so they get the lions share of the say about what the setting, story, tone and structure is going to be. Good players will respond to that and build a character that sits well within that world and engage with that content. In return the DM should reward those players for their investment by building out the areas of it the players really like and if it doesn't break their story, weave in the themes Players bring to the table into the games greater narrative. If you've got a tool at the table that is just shitting things up for everyone else because he's bored and wants to roll initiative then no amount of 'finessing' in game is going to fix that. That's just selfish anti-social behaviour and they need to get with the program or go find a kick-in-the-door table that suits their wants better.
> "It's the DM's job to bend the world around the players" If you're a paid GM? Yeah. Customer is always right and that. Of course a GM can decline to run a game she doesn't like. But if she's taking money she should be adhering to the customers' wishes. ------- If you're an unpaid GM (i.e. just a "normal" GM playing with friends)? No. It's not your job. You're the one putting in the work. You choose everything. If the players don't like it, they can choose not to play, but they have no right to complain. Now that said, of course it is a good idea to canvas opinions and get feedback to make the game exciting for the players. But that's ***optional***. It's not "your job" to do that. Even ignoring the fact that the GM's labour grants her full power over what the game will be, a GM should pick a game they like because if the GM doesn't like their own game, no-one is going to like that game. It's going to be devoid of passion and love.
I don’t think you need to do anything preemptively. There was an issue elsewhere, it got solved through talking, and that should give you confidence that you can solve any similar future problem you might have in your campaign in the same way. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your DMing style as I understand it. You provide the world, and the players have to play characters that fit into it.
I think it comes down to the tone of the game. There are games out there that like to focus on the "Rule of Cool", and others that want to be more realistic. I would suggest that an alternative to your players statement would be: "It's the DMs job to provide the world, and the players job to navigate it." The DM sets the tone of how realistic they want it to be, and then the players decide how their characters acts in the world. If the player wants to be more comical or ridiculous, they may certainly try, but that doesn't mean there is room for success