D&D General The mentality of being a DM

[pemerton]

I should clarify that I don't have a hard rule against letting the dice kill a player

Sounds dangerous!

 

[Umbran]

I've been running games for 28 years. Personally, I view myself as a "Warden of Fun." If you have taken on the responsibility of running a game, you have made yourself responsible for others having a good time.
...
So, how do you view the job of a DM?

I think my view is similar to yours - I think of myself as a "service oriented" GM. My job is to provide a setting in which folks can have a good time. Exactly what this means can vary widely, depending on the group (and the what the people need can change, day to day) and the chosen game. So sometimes it means sandbox, sometimes it means not making players work to find an interesting thread to follow. Sometimes it means a focus on tactical play, sometimes it means setting the dice aside and narrating what is dramatically appropriate, and so on.

That focus means I generally set aside whether the act of running the game is itself enjoyable for me, or caring if things turn out in a way I thought would be particularly cool, or even if the players want to play a game in exactly how I'd prefer to run it. In the end, if the players are happy, then I'm satisfied.

 

[Blue]

Yes this would be examples of what I am talking about. Changing the world on the fly to fit what the DM perceives will make the players happier, or in some dark instances less happy. Sandboxes enable groups to control the difficulty dial which is how I prefer it.

Does this mean that we are agreed that the DM must provide some way to match the players and their preferred style and difficulty, such as through a sandbox where they pick to go or working directly with the DM?

To put another way - with DM that is not offering a sandbox, should they be completely impartial to player wishes including, for instance, combats that are consistantly too easy because that the DM's vision?

 

[Emerikol]

Does this mean that we are agreed that the DM must provide some way to match the players and their preferred style and difficulty, such as through a sandbox where they pick to go or working directly with the DM?

To put another way - with DM that is not offering a sandbox, should they be completely impartial to player wishes including, for instance, combats that are consistantly too easy because that the DM's vision?

Well without a sandbox, and assuming you are still doing skilled play, then the DM is choosing the module and he will choose one he thinks is appropriate for his group. I don't play that way and don't really like it though of course I'd do a one shot. So answer is I think, yes.

If you are bothering to design a detailed campaign world then I think that style of play is a waste of that effort. Just do an adventure path and use Golarion as your world from Pathfinder or some such equivalent. Many people play this style. I admit when I was really young I played this way. I never changed the modules though in those cases. I just assumed if my group was 4th level and the module said 4th level things would be okay. They mostly were.

I think you are missing out on a lot though with that style of play.