Is the DM the most important person at the table

[macd21]

But, it's not hard. That's the gatekeeping. It's not harder than playing, really, as you need to know the same general things to do both: how the mechanics work and the idea of a shared fictional space.

My own experience as both player and GM, combined with conversations I’ve had with other GMs and players, suggests to me that this is very much not the case.

When I’m a player, I don’t need to know as much of the mechanics as when I GM. Nor do I need to know/think as much about the ‘shared fictional space.’

 

[Maxperson]

But, it's not hard. That's the gatekeeping. It's not harder than playing, really, as you need to know the same general things to do both: how the mechanics work and the idea of a shared fictional space.

Yes it is harder than playing. When I DM I have to create the encounters. Players don't have to do that. When I DM I have to roleplay all of the monsters and other NPCs. Players deal with 1 PC. When I DM I have to adjudicate the actions of all of the PCs. Players have to do 0 of that.

Also, players don't need to know the rules to the same level as the DM, or even all of the rules. The DM is the one who adjudicates actions. When you get down to it, he's the only one that needs to know most of the rules. A player should just be able to say, "I want to try and grab the dagger before the guild master does." and let the DM tell him what needs to be rolled and how the action plays out.

Again, harder doesn't mean hard, but there's simply no way that playing is just as hard as DMing.

 

[Imaro]

Why not? If they're having fun, this is fine. If they aren't having fun, that's a completely different question from how hard GMing is. Again, this goes to the accretion of expectation and tradition built up in certain segments of the hobby rather than an actual evaluation of how hard it is to run a game of D&D. Sure, it can be very hard to live up to this table's expectations, but that's that table, not GMing.

Why not? Because I would assume there is a purpose or goal to GM'ing... which let's one know whether they did it successfully or not... something like having a game that your players want to play... do you agree? If not, well driving isn't hard without any sort of training because any 12 or 13 year old can push pedals with their feet, shift a gear and turn a steering wheel... irregardless of what the result of them doing that on a busy (or even non-busy) street is...

Oh, that very much depends on the game system. For D&D, I'll agree that there's extremely little expected of the players in the tradition of play that has built up. But, that's not actually in the rules as such. The rules say that player should be actively engaging the situation and coming up with actions which the GM adjudicates. Depending on the fiction, that can be very demanding. Or not. The tradition is usually to put all of the effort on the GM's shoulders, but that's not required.

I disagree. The DM has to create these situations (frame scenes) and adjudicate the actions that every one of their players is making in said situation as well as declare actions for and adjudicate said actions of any NPC's monsters, etc in the situation... The player has to declare their action. We aren't even talking funny voices and facial expressions just basic running of the game and the DM already has more to do. can you name a game where the procedures specifically call out the players having to do more not equal but more than the GM? I'd honestly be interested in taking a look at said game out of curiosity.

Oh, no, I work very hard for my D&D games. I work that hard because that's the expectation of my table and because, usually, I enjoy it. But, I recognize that that's my choice, not a requirement of running a D&D game. And, when I GM Blades in the Dark, I show up at the table with no prep, I wait for the players to start driving the action, and I react to each thing individually, building up the game by pieces. It's super easy, and my players end up doing as much work as I do. So, no, the difficulting in GMing is largely due to choice and the traditions and expectations built up around the games played rather than an actual, required, difficulty increase.

It's funny you bring up BiTD because I am currently running it as a break for our normal D&D campaign and in all honesty I find it hard and exhausting in a way my pre-prepped D&D games aren't. I have to continuously improv various NPC's & situations... continuously judge position and effect for actions... frame scenes... write down notes so I don't loos all of that improv I'm doing and keep track of the different phases we are in, some of which have totally different mechanical resolutions. It's fun but I wouldn't call it easy, difference in where the mental load is maybe... but not necessarily easier than D&D prep.

 

[Nagol]

Is it? Am I, as GM, taking a risk to my character? Am I, as GM, weighing all the option available and trying to meet my character's goals alongside my goals as player? Do I not need, as player, to have a fair grasp of probabilities to determine the riskiness of my action declaration?

As GM, to adjudicate, I have to determine if the outcome is in questions. That's not hard, I could, according to the DMG, default to 'yes.' Then I ask for a check. Again, according to the DMG, I should be asking for an ability check, so I only have 6 options. The player should be suggesting a proficiency, if one applies, so that's a pretty easy yes or no. I set a check -- the DMG again recommends that almost all checks be 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard), and that's according to the fiction, so should be easy to pick if the thing attempted is easy, moderate, or hard. Then the player has to role, the mechanics tell me if it's a success. I narrate the oucome according to the dice. The hard part of this might be the part where I decide how I narrate a failure -- fail forward, success with complication, or no progress.

This conjecture only applies if you really think the players do not care about what's going on and not declaring actions with full intent. IE, that the situation is one where the action declaration is trivial for the player but complicated for the GM, and I really can't come up with a non-ridiculous example of this.

I claim it is harder, yes. One must consider many more things when adjudicating an attempt than the person does when declaring that attempt.

Taking risk is not hard. I take a risk every time I but a lottery ticket or ask my spouse on a date. Those are not hard acts, but risk is involved. Calculating the second integral of an discontinuous function can be hard, but there is no risk to the activity.

1) One must examine the situation to determine if the declaration is even possible inside the shared fiction or if the declarer made a basic error. "I swing my sword!" "Um, the receiving staff took all weapons when you entered the mansion, remember?" The declarer should perform this step, but quality assurance is necessary.
2) One may need to determine if a unrevealed aspect of the fiction prevents the action. "I swing my sword!" "OK, as you reach for the hilt you discover it is missing!". The declarer cannot perform this step.
3) One needs to then examine the situation and determine if a default answer is appropriate or if stakes are present that would require some form of negotiation or check. The declarer can not perform this step.
4) One then needs to determine stake either by (a) knowing the rules, (b) determining what the shared fiction will look like upon resolution, or (c) negotiating. The declarer can be involved, but does not control this step.
5) One needs to determine the mechanic used for resolution. Fiat, die roll, talking, bribery, whatever.
6) One needs to update the shared fiction with the actual result and be prepared to handle the next declaration.

 

[Imaro]

I claim it is harder, yes. One must consider many more things when adjudicating an attempt than the person does when declaring that attempt.

Taking risk is not hard. I take a risk every time I but a lottery ticket or ask my spouse on a date. Those are not hard acts, but risk is involved. Calculating the second integral of an discontinuous function can be hard, but there is no risk to the activity.

1) One must examine the situation to determine if (a) the declaration is even possible inside the shared fiction of if the declarer made a basic error. "I swing my sword!" "Um, the receiving staff took all weapons when you entered the mansion, remember?" The declarer should perform this step, but quality assurance is necessary.
2) One may need to determine if a unrevealed aspect of the fiction prevents the action. "I swing my sword!" "OK, as you reach for the hilt you discover it is missing!". The declarer cannot perform this step.
3) One needs to then examine the situation and determine if a default answer is appropriate or if stakes are present that would require some form of negotiation or check. The declarer can not perform this step.
4) One then needs to determine stake either by (a) knowing the rules, (b) determining what the shared fiction will look like upon resolution, or (c) negotiating. The declarer can be involved, but does not control this step.
5) One needs to determine the mechanic used for resolution. Fiat, die roll, talking, bribery, whatever.
6) One needs to update the shared fiction with the actual result and be prepared to handle the next declaration.

Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...

 

[Nagol]

So if the player declares they grapple a monster in D&D 3.5... That's easy to adjudicate?

Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...

Easier than 1e...

 

[Nagol]

Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...

True enough, though tangential. That's another area where the GM role can be harder.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult. You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements. It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.

Not just D&D: Pathfinder, CoC, Savage Worlds...

The initial statement was “The GM is the most important person at the table”. I’m not sure it is really useful to respond “Not if you exclude the games that 80% of people are playing...”

 

[Fanaelialae]

A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult. You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements. It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.

As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity. There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition. And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry. If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have. But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing. That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping. Is it intentional? No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway. Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.

I don't think most people (if anyone) in this thread are gatekeeping. You and I have already agreed that ENWorld is not the place to send a newbie, so I'm unsure as to why you're even making this argument. Are you suggesting that we password protect the thread and vet anyone who is interested so that only experienced GMs can read it?

People are allowed to have discussions on topics on the internet without it being gatekeeping.

While gatekeeping is a serious issue, I don't think that most of the things you put forth as gatekeeping are actually gatekeeping. I suspect that by your definition, if I were to do my absolute best to help out a prospective GM, but I gave them bad advice unknowingly (maybe it worked for me but doesn't work for them) that I would be guilty of gatekeeping. Which as far as I'm concerned makes it a useless definition, because literally anything could fall under that scope. A more useful definition of gatekeeping is based on intent. If I do my best to help a newbie, I am not gatekeeping, irrespective of whether I was actually helpful. If I tried to hinder or drive away the newbie I am gatekeeping, regardless of whether or not I am successful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My own experience as both player and GM, combined with conversations I’ve had with other GMs and players, suggests to me that this is very much not the case.

When I’m a player, I don’t need to know as much of the mechanics as when I GM. Nor do I need to know/think as much about the ‘shared fictional space.’

I am currently DMing a 5e game for my group. I do not know the rules as well as two of my players. This does not in any way impede me from DMing.

Ultimately, the DM needs an idea of the rules and general procedures. Instead of remembering all the rules, I think it would benefit the DM to know that uncertainty of a rule means he should make a ruling and keep the game moving.

Yes it is harder than playing. When I DM I have to create the encounters. Players don't have to do that. When I DM I have to roleplay all of the monsters and other NPCs. Players deal with 1 PC. When I DM I have to adjudicate the actions of all of the PCs. Players have to do 0 of that.

Also, players don't need to know the rules to the same level as the DM, or even all of the rules. The DM is the one who adjudicates actions. When you get down to it, he's the only one that needs to know most of the rules. A player should just be able to say, "I want to try and grab the dagger before the guild master does." and let the DM tell him what needs to be rolled and how the action plays out.

Again, harder doesn't mean hard, but there's simply no way that playing is just as hard as DMing.

I think that generally it's more a case that the DM has more to do than the players. I would agree with that. Exactly how much more, I would probably disagree with most. Also, if any of the individual tasks of being a DM is all that hard.

It's funny you bring up BiTD because I am currently running it as a break for our normal D&D campaign and in all honesty I find it hard and exhausting in a way my pre-prepped D&D games aren't. I have to continuously improv various NPC's & situations... continuously judge position and effect for actions... frame scenes... write down notes so I don't loos all of that improv I'm doing and keep track of the different phases we are in, some of which have totally different mechanical resolutions. It's fun but I wouldn't call it easy, difference in where the mental load is maybe... but not necessarily easier than D&D prep.

Blades is complex in ways, for sure, but it's mostly in how all the different pieces fit together. I also think that the learning curve with Blades in the Dark mostly seems to come from having to unlearn what D&D and similar games have ingrained in us.

I had one player who was only passing familiar with D&D, and he took to Blades so much faster than my D&D guys did.

Not just D&D: Pathfinder, CoC, Savage Worlds...

The initial statement was “The GM is the most important person at the table”. I’m not sure it is really useful to respond “Not if you exclude the games that 80% of people are playing...”

Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?