Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Rikka66]

There's nothing stopping any player from DM'ing - except for his fear of the community and fear of failure in general.

Doesn't change that there are less of them. And most players and DMs doesn't engage with communities like this, so I don't think there to worried about being berated by online jerks.

Probably but I'm not certain what you refer to as jobs?

All of the things the DM does. Change it to tasks, or roles, or whatever.

Sure, though skills can be learned that greatly reduces the amount of prep.

Of course, though they still have more of it to do.

So you mean - the DM typically assumes an additional role that has nothing to do with DM'ing. I believe that but I'm not sure it impacts this discussion at all.

"On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work. He plans things and runs the game." From the opening post.

Do you believe that a good player can make an otherwise bad DM seem to be a good DM?

It's a team exercise, and one in which everyone can help support each other's deficiencies. A good player can help a bad DM be better. A good DM can help a bad player be better.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I think the topic might be misleading. The person who is the GM is not more or less important than anyone else playing a game. It is the role of the GM that carries the weight of responsibility, and thus a greater measure of importance. Respect the role and the person who assumes it responsibly.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. A good player going along with a bad GM might make it palatable where it otherwise wouldn't be, but it won't make it good.

Why?

Whereas the game is likely be good with a good GM, irrespective of player skill.

I find that a bad player can derail the game for everyone including the GM. That said the GM does have some granted group authority to mitigate the bad player from particularly bad play.

Everyone's fun is important, but the skill of the GM is more relevant to the quality of the experience than the skill of the player(s),

Maybe, but there must be a reason if this is the case. What about the skill of a GM is more relevant to the group experience than the skill of the players?

IME. Part of that is in fact because a good GM recognizes that everyone's fun is important, whereas an unskilled/bad GM might not.

As nice as that sounds - and it's definitely better when done - i don't think recognizing everyone's fun is important is something that significantly impacts the fun of everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

Doesn't change that there are less of them. And most players and DMs doesn't engage with communities like this, so I don't think there to worried about being berated by online jerks.

So what do you propose is the reason more player's don't DM? I mean it's trivially easy to starting being a DM after you've been a player. So there really shouldn't be this lack of DM's. So why do you think there is?

All of the things the DM does. Change it to tasks, or roles, or whatever.

Okay, so what jobs/tasks/roles are you having in mind that the DM has more of? I don't know for certain but I'm afraid all you are doing is throwing out different descriptions of the DM's one job - to DM and calling them different jobs. If that's the case we can do the same things for the players jobs/tasks/roles. So while I'm still willing to admit you are probably right - I need more detail on exactly what jobs/tasks/roles you are implying.

Of course, though they still have more of it to do.

And doing more does not make for the role or person to be more important...

"On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work. He plans things and runs the game." From the opening post.

Right... the question is what does putting in more work have to do with anything?

It's a team exercise, and one in which everyone can help support each other's deficiencies. A good player can help a bad DM be better. A good DM can help a bad player be better.

Almost sounds like we agree...

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the topic might be misleading. The person who is the GM is not more or less important than anyone else playing a game.

I think even that's debatable with the good dm/bad player vs bad dm/good player discussion.

 

[cmad1977]

Only if the DM “needs” to be the most important. And you don’t want to play with that guy anyways.

 

[aco175]

My OP had me thinking about some of the past threads we had here about things such as railroading and players and DMs both taking part in the game. Some of the homebrew DMs talked about limiting races and classes. Some have pages of new rules and restrictions for their home games. There was talk about "my game, my rules" and such and I was getting the impression of some DMs thinking that if it is my game, then what I make is what we play regardless of what the players want to play. I also got the idea that some were thinking that if players do not want to play in their world they can go away.

Is there different attitudes among DMs that make their own world vs. others that just uses FR or Greyhawk for example, or just runs the adventure books that come out?

Each table and group has different local rules they play with and changes to make things run better for them. We discuss may rule changes here and everyone agrees with a few and not with others. Is there a place where the rules are changed so much that it influences the game as a whole? Does this influence the way some may look at other tables? I'm not sure this last part comes into play, but I may take some ideas to make my game better (at least according to me and my local group).

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not seeing why.

Likely because your experience is a group of GMs, and thus no one player is irreplaceable because someone can take over the job. But in many groups, there is often only one player willing and able to perform the duty. If that person leaves, then the group often disbands because either no one is willing to attempt to run a campaign, or if someone does, it is far enough below the standards set by the GM that the participants would rather not play than continue.

As one example, I was with a group of about 10 players (some of whom only attended irregularly) which had at one point 5 GMs. But about the time that I joined the group, the groups tastes in the game began to mature from the combined result of years of gaming and increasing age and maturity. Gradually over the course of about a year, the other campaigns were dropped in favor of the game of one of the GMs simply because no one was enjoying any other game - including the GMs of those games. Some of the GMs did continue as a GM in alternative game systems, and ran some well regarded mini-campaigns, but it was clear by that point that while several of the players were very good players, they just didn't have the skills to also be very good GMs - or at least good GMs by the higher standards that they themselves were setting. They all could have run megadungeon crawls where you listen at doors, disarm traps, kill monsters and take their stuff. But they'd all gotten to the point that after 10-years of that, they needed more.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I disagree that if the DM leaves, another player just takes their place. I think that's an exception. It's why DMs are in high demand. And why you see players leave at AL games when there aren't enough DMs to go around. I very much doubt those players all get together and say "I'll DM!". From what I've seen, they just leave.

Also, a DM is more skilled than a player because the DM has to do everything a player does (roleplay a persona) and a whole lot more on top of it that players don't. Like playing EVERY NPC persona. And knowing most of the rules of most classes, not just their own. And organizing the game. And preparing a lot more.

I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through). But I have seen good players who make poor DMs (largely because of disorganization, poor planning, lack of rules knowledge, etc)

 

[FrogReaver]

But in many groups, there is often only one player willing and able to perform the duty.

Nearly every player is able to DM. Not all are willing, but the question is why aren't they willing?

If that person leaves, then the group often disbands because either no one is willing to attempt to run a campaign, or if someone does, it is far enough below the standards set by the GM that the participants would rather not play than continue.

So we either have people unwilling to run a game - not that they can't just that for some unknown and undescribed reasons they don't want to. Yea, I've elaborated on what I think those reasons are. I don't see anyone else offering ideas on that...

Or we have a persons GM abilities being judged harshly because they are new and the previous DM was more experienced. Thus, the reason we don't have more DM's is because no one gives them a chance to hone their DM skills.

As one example, I was with a group of about 10 players (some of whom only attended irregularly) which had at one point 5 GMs. But about the time that I joined the group, the groups tastes in the game began to mature from the combined result of years of gaming and increasing age and maturity. Gradually over the course of about a year, the other campaigns were dropped in favor of the game of one of the GMs simply because no one was enjoying any other game - including the GMs of those games. Some of the GMs did continue as a GM in alternative game systems, and ran some well regarded mini-campaigns, but it was clear by that point that while several of the players were very good players, they just didn't have the skills to also be very good GMs - or at least good GMs by the higher standards that they themselves were setting. They all could have run megadungeon crawls where you listen at doors, disarm traps, kill monsters and take their stuff. But they'd all gotten to the point that after 10-years of that, they needed more.

So the point of the story is that there are plenty of GM's but that not everyone wants to play in certain GM's games. Taken to a community level that would seem to imply that there are plenty of GM's in the community?