GM's Again - Player Feedback

[Guest taxboy4]

Recently I had a mass flaming on our game's Board Thread with the players very unhappy with how the game was going. After I stopped being pissed off, I actually listened to the comments, and changed my game for the better.

 

How do other DM's deal with feedback, positive or negative. Who has had some shockers?

 

I must admit its a great ego boost when you've had a great game!

[MarioTani]

My GM-style is based on the improvisation so the feedback is costant during a game.

 

But for the same reason the leeway in changing the way I GM is almost nothing.

 

They play the characters, i "play" the world saround them, so apart from the occasional help in avoiding death, they get the consequences of their actions.

 

The general tone of the campaign it's decided at Character creation and is derivd by the type of PC they've built.

 

and...

 

sure it a great EGO boost to know you're doing well:)

[Guest joen00b]

Long ago I made the mistake of not listening or caring about what my players thought. I was under the misconception that if they just saw the end result, they'd be pleasantly surprised. Truth is, they were pleasantly pissed. They weren't happy with the current direction of the campaign, and I would giggle to myself thinking I'd allay all their angers with the end result. Yeah, the end result was a bunch of them did not want to play in the continuation of the campaign.

 

I didn't listen to my players and it was very detrimental to the campaign. Looking back now, 2 players dropped out of the group early on because they didn't like the direction it was going, and later on, people started missing weeks, almost like they were taking turns disappearing.

 

By the end, I was smug, stuck-up and thought I was untouchable by their remarks, but the truth was, the gaming dynamic goes from GM to player to GM, it's the great circle of life. The story doesn't stop there though.

 

In an attempt to gain favor with the group again, I gave into their wants, a bit too much. It's like a Pendulum swinging, you don't want it to swing too far one way or the other, but a nice controlled swing trying to stay in the middle without giving or taking too much.

 

It completely ruined the campaign when I tried to win them back, they took and took and before I knew it, the whole thing was out of control. I had to scrap many of my notes and was making it up on the fly. Because I was working so much and shooting in Pool Leagues 3 times a week, I was onyl really able to come up with about 2 hours of gaming materials, a poorly planned fight that the group would stomp, and the rest I was pulling out of my butt. I was recording the gaming sessions (non combat) so I could hopefully remember some of what was going on and try to build a story seed out of something.

 

I ended up finishing the campaign months earlier than predicted and letting someone else GM. They had been working on a campaign, he had been talking with the other players and has since created an immense, deep ongoing campaign with incredible elements of paranoia, grittiness and vigilanteism. It's still going today, 3 years running! He listens to his players, makes amends when need be, but keeps as much contol as needed. The group is pretty much self sustaining at this point. Since this all happened, I've GM'ed for one group that was short lived as we were all trying to recapture the magic of previous campaigns and it failed.

 

Looking back, I treated the group as an opponent more than a bunch of friends. I was matching my wits against theirs, and what made it unfair was I controlled the universe they played in. I didn't need to match wits with them or treat them as an opponent, I should have been creating a fun time for them.

 

The point is: The players have a vested interest with playing under you as a GM. You are their entertainer, you are their dancing monkey, their bear riding the bicycle. You provide them with the entertainment they crave. This doesn't mean they have sole rights to the game, it means they do have some direction over how the game goes. They are an element of the game just like you are. When creating the campaign or scenario, the individuals playing the characters must be brought into consideration. They have as much say in the game as you do. I learned the hard way about this because I was stubborn and conceited about my gaming style.

 

I'm currently writing a whole new campaign that will be much more flexible than previous story arcs I've written, but with enough direction to keep the players interested... I hope. You can never be 100% everytime, you can only hope for 85% or better as often as you can, and adapt when the situation calls for it.

 

Keep your chin up, talk to the players, and come to an agreement. it's almost like Union Talks with a company. There will be give and take, just don't give up too much or take too much.

[Arkham]

Haven't really had any shockers re: feedback.

 

But ever since I ran my first session I have always

required feedback, at least one positive and one

negative thing in order to get eps.

[Kzinbane]

The trick

 

I think that making sure the players know you are open to feedback is vital. I have always tried to poll the players occasionally on how things are going and also to encourage them to be critical if they felt the need. To do this you (as GM) have to be sure you can handle the answer though and not get too defensive! One sure way to shut up feedback is to get defensive.

Most important thing other than asking and being open is to be sure you know what style of play the people like BEFORE getting started. Do they like action/combat oriented gaming? If they do and you spend time coming up with a deep, complicated and multi fascetted world you're going to be dissapointed and they'll potentially be bored as they'd rather be bashing heads than tracking down clues and solving mysteries.

[Arthur]

I too went through the phase of "power-mad" GM. I figured I was the GOD of my world and the players had to bow to my desires. I saw some other GMs with the same traits.

 

We soon found ourselves as GMs without players.

 

In my final stages as GM (when I actually used to play RPGs), I realized that the game was an implied contract: as GM I was there to make and adjudicate an entertaining session for the players; their obligation was to go along with the reality of my game-world.

 

Running roughshod over the players made it non-fun for them, as did knuckling under to any of their demands. Either style shifted the balance too far toward GM or player.

[Killer Shrike]

I run an interactive game and set the stage for the players, but also take into account their preferences.

 

The big problem currently is my current group of players are all either non-confrontational, or all just really easy going. I havent figured out which yet.

 

So, either they are really happy with my GMing style or they are just too afraid to tell me otherwise. I poll them for negative feedback every session, and the response is almost always that they are having fun and enjoying it, even the odd session that I think went to crap and back they seem to like. Its actually really frustrating.

 

Coming from back east and then the Corps Im used to people that dont hesitate to tell you how they feel in great detail (and often "colorful" language). Dealing with these All-Is-Cool-Dude Californian Civilians has been a real trial in "are they really happy or did the part of their brains that handles 'not being happy' get fried by the copious mari-ju-wana all native Calis smoke when us out of staters arent looking?"