Pathfinder 1E Giving 'em What They Want

[Fauchard1520]

Question for all you GMs out there. Have you ever shelved your own preferences and predilections in favor of giving the players what they want? Did it feel like you were somehow betraying your campaign concept, or was it ultimately a good thing for the group?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[nevin]

Question for all you GMs out there. Have you ever shelved your own preferences and predilections in favor of giving the players what they want? Did it feel like you were somehow betraying your campaign concept, or was it ultimately a good thing for the group?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

A good game is a cooperative event. If your player's arent enjoying what you want you either change or get more players. (Good luck there)

I change stuff all the time a goid game is a mobing target between DM vision and player expectation. If you dont adjust for your players your games will always be substandard events

 

[DemoMonkey]

If your players actually KNOW and can articulate what they want, you've already won the GM lottery. It would be wasteful to squander that.

 

[Schmoe]

I think figuring out what will keep my players interested is the sometimes the hardest part of the role. I've rarely gone into a game with a rigid expectation of what it will be, and it always seems to evolve as we go. I suppose if I started with a firm vision of what the campaign would be like, I would also be sure to discuss up front with the group to make sure they were bought in. I kind of did that with my most recent game, establishing parameters on how lethal the game might be, whether they were into dungeon-crawling, and such. But as I mentioned, it has certainly evolved and morphed over time.

In fact, as I think about it, one of the strengths of a long-running campaign is that you can mix up the sessions. Just because you are in the midst of a mega-dungeon doesn't mean that you can't have a mini adventure arc where the party signs up with the Dungeon Hall Enforcement Squad and do a police procedural for a few sessions. I do things like that from time to time, and generally tease the idea before fully investing.

All of that is a long-winded way of saying that in my mind the game is cooperative, and part of my role is to find scenarios we will all enjoy.

 

[GMMichael]

I change stuff all the time (A good game is a moving) target between DM vision and player expectation.

This is why I can't see "shelving" my preferences; if I ditch what I want out of the game, then I won't want to play! Luckily, my campaign concept is usually flexible enough to allow PCs to get what they want, as long as we all met eye-to-eye at the start of the thing.

Lord of the land knows that I'd have played some pretty weird games if I'd given the players exactly what they wanted.

 

[nevin]

This is why I can't see "shelving" my preferences; if I ditch what I want out of the game, then I won't want to play! Luckily, my campaign concept is usually flexible enough to allow PCs to get what they want, as long as we all met eye-to-eye at the start of the thing.

Lord of the land knows that I'd have played some pretty weird games if I'd given the players exactly what they wanted.

Thats why i said moving target. DM has to be happy too. If more than one person is getting what they want then no ones getting everything they want

 

[dave2008]

Question for all you GMs out there. Have you ever shelved your own preferences and predilections in favor of giving the players what they want? Did it feel like you were somehow betraying your campaign concept, or was it ultimately a good thing for the group?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I've found over the years it is almost always better to be flexible as a DM and go with the player flow. Everyone is much happier in the end.

 

[aco175]

I agree with the others that are saying that the players help shape the game. You can nudge them in your direction and set up plots for them, but they are going to grab ones that they like and it makes a better game for everyone when it is a shared game.

If they blow off the threat of the orcs like you had planned and want to explore the ruins of abandoned churches, that's fine. Eventually you can have your idea of orcs come to them after a few levels now that they allied with giants. Now the treat of larger and townsfolk are coming to them. Eventually your ideas can come back around for the most part.

The bigger problems are when you don't want the PCs being turtles and cat-folk and your players want to be. Or, your players want big dungeon crawls and you want political intrigue with kings and queens.

 

[Fauchard1520]

The bigger problems are when you don't want the PCs being turtles and cat-folk and your players want to be. Or, your players want big dungeon crawls and you want political intrigue with kings and queens.

How do you avoid those disagreements? Is this all "Session Zero" stuff and misaligned expectations, or does it come down to "find a new group" when players and GM seem to want fundamentally different things?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Yeah, session 0 is the place to discuss campaign expectations. And if no agreement can be reached on one GM's game offer then someone else can put forward a suggestion of something they'd like to run. I mean, it's social thing with friends, I'm sure that people can work this stuff out.