Is the DM the most important person at the table

[ccs]

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.

IME concerning games at the DMs home - we're all friends. So why would we drift apart? We'll just relocate the game.
I mean, other than family & business, people I don't know/don't like aren't coming over to my place....

 

[Nebulous]

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.

I have to disagree with that. Running a game is much more difficult than just showing up as a player. And there are all the shades in between from a very poor DM to a masterful DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps I should amend my statement a bit. DMing certainly can be hard. I just don’t think that it must be so. And I think the perception of it being hard is more of an obstacle to people trying it out than the actual difficulty level.

I generally find running 5E to be incredibly easy. The one exception I’d make to that is if you’re running one of the giant adventure books. Those are a pain to read through entirely. I don’t think I’d ever suggest one of those for a beginning DM, though.

 

[prabe]

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).

I saw this go by, and while I don't have a strong feeling on the DM being more important than the other players (I think there's a gestalt at a TRPG table, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts; but while all parts are in principle equal, in practice some parts are more equal than others) I do run a homebrew campaign, and I do have limitations on races and classes, and I do think I have something to say about that.

TRPGS, like any form of fiction, require willing suspension of disblief from the audience and (in my experience) the author/s. If I'm going to be running campaigns in a world, I need to be willing to believe in that world, at least a little. That's going to be harder if there are things that don't make sense, or even if there are things that clash (past a threshold) with my tastes. Heck, the fact that published adventures literally make no sense to me when I read or play them (and if they don't make sense I can't suspend disbelief to play/run them) is probably connected to my running homebrew adventures exclusively.

There are some rules I usually run with (like no evil PCs) that are unquestionably about aesthetics of play, and preferences for the type/s of stories that emerge from play. Some of the class/race restrictions are, now that I think of it, coming from a similar place.

There's a line in what I'm quoting about "my game, my rules," and it doesn't feel from inside my head as though that's exactly what's happening; I won't disagree strongly with someone who believes otherwise, though. I don't want players to feel unwelcome at my table, and that's not really what my rules are about. I wouldn't doubt (much) though that there are players who would prefer not to play at my tables, and if the fit is that off I'm not sure it's a bad thing those players aren't playing at my tables.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

I don't understand that community argument. Running any game well is a difficult and often daunting thing to do. I remember how damn nervous I used to get before a game, like I was about to give a speech on stage in front of an audience. Now, I personally get immense satisfaction from running games and don't particularly like being a player. I get bored. The difficulty of running the game keeps me engaged and invested.

 

[Nagol]

I don't understand that community argument. Running any game well is a difficult and often daunting thing to do. I remember how damn nervous I used to get before a game, like I was about to give a speech on stage in front of an audience. Now, I personally get immense satisfaction from running games and don't particularly like being a player. I get bored. The difficulty of running the game keeps me engaged and invested.

Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless. I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running. I'm too averse to attention. By the time that trait fully developed, DMing/GMing was just something I did -- much like group speaking became once my job required it and I could no longer avoid it.

I like being a player. I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though. There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the DM leaves, then, someone else will become the DM... People are people. I suppose, if the DM leaves, it will destroy the campaign, while, when a player leaves, the same does not happen, but, in a traditional sense, the DM is no more important than any of the players. I play D&D to have fun with my mates, not to become the lord of the table.

I’ve continued several campaigns after a DM left, as well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't know whether I would say that GMing is hard per se, but I would say that it is challenging in ways that being a player isn't. It is a greater responsibility. Not everyone wants that.

There's a certain bar that exists when you're a GM. A bare minimum to be able to run a game. Either you need to prep (which requires at least a modicum of time and effort), or be able to improvise well (which doesn't necessarily come naturally at first). Ideally, both. Whereas the minimum for a player is just showing up.

If the GM is off their game for the night, it will impact the game almost without question. If a particular player is unusually quiet (ie, because they're not feeling well), odds are that another player will just fill in. This is only natural, since there is typically only one GM but multiple players. (I'll grant that this dynamic could be different in less common situations, such as a solo game.)

 

[prabe]

Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless. I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running. I'm too averse to attention.

I'm something of an introvert, as well, and I specifically started running tables at game stores out of a specific desire to get out of my comfort zone, game with new people. It's been fun.

I like being a player. I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though. There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.

I agree about enjoying being a player. I find that playing helps me be a better DM. It's important enough to me that I've stuck with a campaign that is really not to my tastes for more than a year, just because I feel the need for balance.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless. I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running. I'm too averse to attention. By the time that trait fully developed, DMing/GMing was just something I did -- much like group speaking became once my job required it and I could no longer avoid it.

I like being a player. I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though. There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.

I bet if you told your group - next campaign I want to play instead of DM - I bet someone would step up and volunteer.