Is the DM the most important person at the table

[hawkeyefan]

I think that the “importance” of the DM is mostly due to supply and demand, as many have mentioned in the thread.

But, I think in a way it’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. Because it’s exactly this idea....that being a DM is somehow tougher or more meaningful than being a player....that makes people less willing to DM.

The way to create more DMs is to remind people that it’s really not much tougher than playing and that they actually can do it. Also having more voices that are focused on the group activity rather than those of “my table, my way” proponents will also help.

So I think that rather than ask “is the DM more important?” the better question is “do we want the DM to be more important?” And once you’ve answered that, then you should proceed accordingly.

 

[Nagol]

I think that the “importance” of the DM is mostly due to supply and demand, as many have mentioned in the thread.

But, I think in a way it’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. Because it’s exactly this idea....that being a DM is somehow tougher or more meaningful than being a player....that makes people less willing to DM.

The way to create more DMs is to remind people that it’s really not much tougher than playing and that they actually can do it. Also having more voices that are focused on the group activity rather than those of “my table, my way” proponents will also help.

So I think that rather than ask “is the DM more important?” the better question is “do we want the DM to be more important?” And once you’ve answered that, then you should proceed accordingly.

Why lie to people like that? I've DMed for 40 years. I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe. Playing is tremendously easier. Can more people do it? Sure! Do they want to? Heck, no! Why not? Because it is hard.
There is the typical learning curve for doing a new activity. There is more administration. There is more social wrangling of the players.

It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.

When I DM, am I more important than any single player to my game? Yes. I run if at least half my players are available. I never run if I'm not available. There's a ratio there. If I have at least 2 players, I'm more important to the game.

Am I more important to the social gathering? Probably not. Those times where I don't want to/can't run, other activities get pulled out.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why lie to people like that? I've DMed for 40 years. I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe. Playing is tremendously easier. Can more people do it? Sure! Do they want to? Heck, no! Why not? Because it is hard.
There is the typical learning curve for doing a new activity. There is more administration. There is more social wrangling of the players.

It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.

Yep. DMing is harder. For reasons mentioned upthread. It's more responsibility and greater needed game knowledge and greater organization.

And for some people, that's just too much. Nothing wrong with that, but no sense in setting people up for failure by telling them is no more difficult, and then they find out the hard way it is. THAT is what turns away new DMs.

IMO the proper response is "DMing is harder. But it's also rewarding in different ways. Here, let me help. We'll co-DM for a while and I'll coach you."

 

[dragoner]

Depends on what table: online? The game dies, face to face, someone else GM's.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why?

That's been my experience.

The GM sets the tone and is the referee. If the person bringing life to the world you interact with is bad, it is likely to impact the entire experience (negatively). I suppose it's likely to be fine if all the players want to do is sit at a tavern table and RP, but as soon as they need to interact with the game world in a meaningful sense beyond of the player characters themselves, that relies on the DM.

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.

I said irrespective of player skill. Being a bad player (ie, being disruptive, etc) is more reflective of a lack of basic life skills than player skill.

And as you say, a good GM can significantly mitigate the impact of a bad player. A good player is quite limited in their capacity to mitigate a bad GM.

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?

As I stated above, the GM is responsible for everything outside the PCs themselves. They set the tone, determine how the world interacts with the PCs, and arbitrate the rules.

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.

Maybe not at a conscious level. But IMO there aren't any good GMs who don't recognize this at least subconsciously.

Why would anyone play if they didn't enjoy it?

Note that not every group's definition of fun is the same. One group might enjoy cinematic adventures where they get to be Big Damn Heroes. Another group might enjoy a brutal, bloody slog that would best be described as nightmare-difficulty. Some GMs might be good at running one style but not the other, resulting in a good GM who is bad for a group that doesn't want to play that way. But that's more a matter of mismatched expectations than actual skill.

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)

I have, though it's a rarity. He was a good GM because he would run the kind of game that he wanted to play in, where the players had a lot of agency.

Unfortunately, when he played he was a very selfish kind of player who required a lot of social pressure from everyone at the table to not constantly do things that were at the expense of everyone else's fun. He's a friend, so it wasn't like we were going to boot him from the table, but it could be quite stressful and unfun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or you have a group of 4 with nowhere to play (IME the game is invariably at the DM's home) who then just drift apart.

A DM of any kind is more important than a player in one respect, in that without a DM the player has no place to play.

That’s never been my experience. Mostly we play at the house of whoever has the best house for getting together and playing at.

we don’t come to my little apartment when I’m gonna run a game, we go to my buddy’s place. That doesn’t make him more important than other players, it just makes him the host, they guy you ask before taking things outta the fridge, and help pick up at the end of the night.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why lie to people like that? I've DMed for 40 years. I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe. Playing is tremendously easier.

Perhaps that depends on the style of games the DM is running. There are styles that require minimal prep and make for extremely fun games.

Can more people do it? Sure! Do they want to? Heck, no! Why not? Because it is hard.

But what's hard about it? It seems to me that what makes it "hard" is how players react if you are not an extremely experienced DM. It seems to me that it's hard because the community offers little to no support for unique DM styles. It seems to me that it's hard because the slightest DM error gets harped on like it's the end of the world.

I think it's far more likely that things other than hardness are impacting this.

Then there's also the other side of the equation and that's - is DM'ing more rewarding than playing?

There is the typical learning curve for doing a new activity.

Something we are more than willing to grant to new players

There is more administration.

Depends on the style. It can be only slightly more. Or it can be extremely so.

There is more social wrangling of the players.

How so?

It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.

But ultimately the question is why. Is it because it's hard and you are somehow superior because you will do the "hard" things? Or is it because the community is mostly nasty to new DM's?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why lie to people like that? I've DMed for 40 years. I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe. Playing is tremendously easier. Can more people do it? Sure! Do they want to? Heck, no! Why not? Because it is hard.
There is the typical learning curve for doing a new activity. There is more administration. There is more social wrangling of the players.

It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.

When I DM, am I more important than any single player to my game? Yes. I run if at least half my players are available. I never run if I'm not available. There's a ratio there. If I have at least 2 players, I'm more important to the game.

Am I more important to the social gathering? Probably not. Those times where I don't want to/can't run, other activities get pulled out.

Because I don’t think it’s a lie. I don’t think that it is significantly harder to DM than to play. I think that we’ve been conditioned to think this, and I think a lot of the common DMing techniques and practices can support that.

But I think that does not need to be the case.

There are plenty of ways to make the job easier, and plenty of ways for the group to work together. I’m personally not the rules guru at my table. I lean on one player to be my spell guru, and another for combat rules. I have another player track initiative. We divvy up the maintenance jobs of the game so that the DM can focus on the NPCs and the world as they reapond to the PCs.

Is there a learning curve to DMing? Sure. There’s one for playing well, too. Both tend to be accomplished best through practice and through trying different things until any individual finds what works best for them. In that sense, they’re really not all that different.

 

[Nagol]

Perhaps that depends on the style of games the DM is running. There are styles that require minimal prep and make for extremely fun games.

Even with low-prep games (unlike D&D) and DMing styles designed to be low-prep ()Lazy DM tips), running a game requires more administration, more attention, heck even more speaking. It requires the assumption of more viewpoints more quickly and the ability to jump between stances nearly instantly.

In other words, it requires one to develop new skills and hone some player skills more sharply. That's work.

But what's hard about it? It seems to me that what makes it "hard" is how players react if you are not an extremely experienced DM. It seems to me that it's hard because the community offers little to no support for unique DM styles. It seems to me that it's hard because the slightest DM error gets harped on like it's the end of the world.[

I've pointed out what's hard. "The community" doesn't exist. There are lots of mico communities I like to call tables. The social norms and expectations differ dramatically across them. Many (most?) of the tables I'm at seek to help players try and become DM/GMs because the few DMs that are there would like more chances to play. We coach, we spread load, we are willing to suggest or critique if the DM asks for criticism. You kow what? About 1 in 3 people try to DM at least once. About 1 in 6 people run a campaign. About one in a dozen go on to run additional campaigns. The rest don't want to. Because it is hard.

Then there's also the other side of the equation and that's - is DM'ing more rewarding than playing?

For some people! About 1 in 12! The ones that go on to run multiple campaigns like to DM at least as much as playing.

Something we are more than willing to grant to new players

OK. And?

Depends on the style. It can be only slightly more. Or it can be extremely so.

But it is never less.

How so?

All sorts of ways. Keeping the players on point, making sure people are attending, making sure people actually have a character to play. (Depending on the game) making sure the characters are legal. Asking for roll, asking for actions. Pressing when faced with indecision. In every conceivable way, the DM is wrangling players.

But ultimately the question is why. Is it because it's hard and you are somehow superior because you will do the "hard" things? Or is it because the community is mostly nasty to new DM's?

Because it is hard. At one point I and a second GM ran a workshop to get people to become DM/GMs (mainly focused on non-D&D games, CHAMPIONS and Call of Cthulhu were very big at the time. D&D was not.) We got maybe half the people we hoped, and of those maybe a third went on to actually try to run a campaign. About half of those stopped mid-way and didn't GM any more. It had nothing to do with "the community" being mean. It is hard.

 

[Nagol]

Because I don’t think it’s a lie. I don’t think that it is significantly harder to DM than to play. I think that we’ve been conditioned to think this, and I think a lot of the common DMing techniques and practices can support that.

But I think that does not need to be the case.

There are plenty of ways to make the job easier, and plenty of ways for the group to work together. I’m personally not the rules guru at my table. I lean on one player to be my spell guru, and another for combat rules. I have another player track initiative. We divvy up the maintenance jobs of the game so that the DM can focus on the NPCs and the world as they reapond to the PCs.

Is there a learning curve to DMing? Sure. There’s one for playing well, too. Both tend to be accomplished best through practice and through trying different things until any individual finds what works best for them. In that sense, they’re really not all that different.

I never found it too hard either. I have talked with an awful lot of prospective DM/GMs over the decades. Most do find it hard enough to not warrant the time. Regardless of high-prep games like D&D, Runequest, or Call of Cthulhu, or lower prep games like FATE and Dungeonworld, the amount and type of work required is unappealing.

Much like I find knitting, bird-watching, hunting, and NASCAR spectating hard and unappealing.