Is the DM the most important person at the table

[prabe]

To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure? Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between DMs who homebrew their settings and DMs who don't. I'd guess the differences are probably on axes roughly corresponding to time, energy, and experience. In my case I have tons of time, a reasonable amount of experience, and intermittent spurts of energy. Also, I literally can't make sense of published adventures when I read them, I can't keep them moving and/or together when I'm running, and I actively hate playing them if a DM insists, so I need to do homebrew if I'm going to run. My guess is someone running published adventures/adventure paths has roughly nothing in common with that.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I think it's useful to note the difference between gatekeeping and barriers. As you say, gatekeeping is a deliberate action. If I refuse to allow someone to join me at a game table because I don't like the RPGs they play, I don't think they know enough about the setting, or they smell bad all the time I am gatekeeping. (Not all gatekeeping is bad.) Barriers to play might include the costs and availability of materials, access to other players, or difficulty understanding the rules and these aren't typically deliberate efforts to keep others away.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it's useful to note the difference between gatekeeping and barriers. As you say, gatekeeping is a deliberate action. If I refuse to allow someone to join me at a game table because I don't like the RPGs they play, I don't think they know enough about the setting, or they smell bad all the time I am gatekeeping. (Not all gatekeeping is bad.) Barriers to play might include the costs and availability of materials, access to other players, or difficulty understanding the rules and these aren't typically deliberate efforts to keep others away.

I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry. This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional. If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.

And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now. It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is. Here's an example: a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game. It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM. The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple. IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM. We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM. We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like. But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM. I can be a GM at a much lower level of output. So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM. And, that's gatekeeping. Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club. Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.

To take some examples from responses to me, it's been said that adjudicating actions is harder than declaring them. But, most of the list are almost always trivial -- and should have been part of the player's job to make sure remain trivial because the player has the duty to engage with the fiction. The "hardest" parts of the job are picking a DC, which, again, if you use the DMG advice, is a question of "is this task easy, moderate, or hard?" This isn't hard. The numerated list presented mostly trivial steps in an attempt to make the process look more complicated that it actually is, in practice. I think a lot of that list comes from the unstated belief that it's the GM's job to police the players -- that the players will not be acting in a disciplined fashion and will present action declarations that require extra work on the GM's part to vet and untangle from abuse. But, that's a player problem, not a GM duty.

And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players. You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly. But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty. I, personally, have a cleric in the group I run for and I couldn't tell you at all how Turn Undead works, or what things that PC has that might interact with that. I know she can Turn Undead, but that's it, and I really don't think about it at all. If it comes up in a session, like it did a few months ago, I'm often surprised, because I forgot about it. My player knows her rules, and follows them, and I don't have to think about it at all. If a question comes up, I'll tell the player to read the rule and report back while I move on to other things. OR, I'll make a ruling, and we'll address it later. I don't need to know these rules to run a game -- those rules are player facing, it's their job to know them and apply them through their action declarations. I'm there to frame the scenes and adjudicate the actions. Those rules I know very well. Luckily for me, even in 5e, they're pretty straightforward.

The worst part of running D&D is running the monsters, especially if they have a ton of special abilities. But, again, as GM, I pick the monsters, so that's entirely under my control as GM as to how much difficulty I add to myself. Same with campaign design, or adventure design. I pick my workload. If I ever feel like my players are dictating my workload, it's time to have a serious discussion with the group. If players are just there to do the minimum effort show up and toss dice and be taught/led through the rules by me, or constantly declare actions that require my vetting, we have a problem, and it's not that GMing is hard.

Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this. Nope. That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.

 

[prabe]

I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry. This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional. If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.

Not all barriers are artificial, though. If nothing else, there's a good case to be made that being a GM is more expensive than being a player, at least if the game's publishers follow the D&D model and publish a separate book for GMs. Sure, that's something like a business decision, and you'll see that as natural as you see any other business decision; you'll probably describe this as "systemic," which ... sure, but I"m not sure whether it needs to be addressed as a gatekeeping issue. There's something similar if you're trying to introduce the people at your table to a new game; chances you're the one who bought it (and there's probably a correlation between that and wanting to play/run it); if you're introducing a game you absolutely need to know the rules, and I'd say the probability that you know the rues better than the players approaches 1.

And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now. It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is. Here's an example: a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game. It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM. The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple. IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM. We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM. We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like. But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM. I can be a GM at a much lower level of output. So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM. And, that's gatekeeping. Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club. Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.

I'll admit that your hypothetical very smol dungeon wouldn't satisfy me as a player or a DM, but that doesn't mean I think a table that enjoys it is Doing It Wrong. My expectations for my game aren't any more relevant to your game than you allow them to be, really.

To take some examples from responses to me, it's been said that adjudicating actions is harder than declaring them. But, most of the list are almost always trivial -- and should have been part of the player's job to make sure remain trivial because the player has the duty to engage with the fiction. The "hardest" parts of the job are picking a DC, which, again, if you use the DMG advice, is a question of "is this task easy, moderate, or hard?" This isn't hard. The numerated list presented mostly trivial steps in an attempt to make the process look more complicated that it actually is, in practice. I think a lot of that list comes from the unstated belief that it's the GM's job to police the players -- that the players will not be acting in a disciplined fashion and will present action declarations that require extra work on the GM's part to vet and untangle from abuse. But, that's a player problem, not a GM duty.

Both of the campaigns I'm running have pretty good tables, but even the excellent players there make mistakes.

And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players. You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly. But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty. I, personally, have a cleric in the group I run for and I couldn't tell you at all how Turn Undead works, or what things that PC has that might interact with that. I know she can Turn Undead, but that's it, and I really don't think about it at all. If it comes up in a session, like it did a few months ago, I'm often surprised, because I forgot about it. My player knows her rules, and follows them, and I don't have to think about it at all. If a question comes up, I'll tell the player to read the rule and report back while I move on to other things. OR, I'll make a ruling, and we'll address it later. I don't need to know these rules to run a game -- those rules are player facing, it's their job to know them and apply them through their action declarations. I'm there to frame the scenes and adjudicate the actions. Those rules I know very well. Luckily for me, even in 5e, they're pretty straightforward.

Every time a player asks you "Can I [verb]?" they're asking a rules question. They're asking for your judgment. Judgment isn't necessarily hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it easy, either. It's nice when the players know the rules for their own characters, but sometimes situations or odd unexpected interactions arise, and ti's good to have enough of a handle on the rules to be able to handle those.

The worst part of running D&D is running the monsters, especially if they have a ton of special abilities. But, again, as GM, I pick the monsters, so that's entirely under my control as GM as to how much difficulty I add to myself. Same with campaign design, or adventure design. I pick my workload. If I ever feel like my players are dictating my workload, it's time to have a serious discussion with the group. If players are just there to do the minimum effort show up and toss dice and be taught/led through the rules by me, or constantly declare actions that require my vetting, we have a problem, and it's not that GMing is hard.

Sure, and that's why there's been some discussion about homebrew adventures versus published. Some GMs have the time, energy, and inclination to make their own settings/adventures; others don't. It's another way of choosing your workload. It's absolutely within a GM's rights to take steps to reduce their workload.

Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this. Nope. That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.

I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.

 

[MGibster]

I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry.

You're using gatekeeping in a manner that is very much outside the norm. Almost everyone else uses gatekeeping to mean the deliberate effort of limiting access to something and the way you use it to describe any barrier leads to confusion.

This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional. If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.

You can refer to the structural and system roadblocks as barriers instead of gatekeeping (at least when it's not a deliberate effort to exclude people). The main books for FFG's Star Wars line retails for $60 and for some people that is a barrier to entry but it's not gatekeeping. If a young woman asks me if she can join my Edge of the Empire game and I grill her to ascertain her grasp of Star Wars trivia I am gatekeeping.

Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this. Nope. That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.

The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does. However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not all barriers are artificial, though. If nothing else, there's a good case to be made that being a GM is more expensive than being a player, at least if the game's publishers follow the D&D model and publish a separate book for GMs. Sure, that's something like a business decision, and you'll see that as natural as you see any other business decision; you'll probably describe this as "systemic," which ... sure, but I"m not sure whether it needs to be addressed as a gatekeeping issue. There's something similar if you're trying to introduce the people at your table to a new game; chances you're the one who bought it (and there's probably a correlation between that and wanting to play/run it); if you're introducing a game you absolutely need to know the rules, and I'd say the probability that you know the rues better than the players approaches 1.

I'd say it is systemic, but may not be a bad thing. Again, gatekeeping is not always a negative, although it quite often is. In this case, there's a balancing factor between the cost of printing, change of sale, amount of material to digest, etc., that may justify making the DMG a separate purchase expected of GMs but not of players. Still an artificial barrier to entry if owning a DMG is expected of being a GM, although a small and justifiable one. It, by itself, may not rise to gatekeeping, but it does add to the systemic costs of other things that erects the gate.

I'll admit that your hypothetical very smol dungeon wouldn't satisfy me as a player or a DM, but that doesn't mean I think a table that enjoys it is Doing It Wrong. My expectations for my game aren't any more relevant to your game than you allow them to be, really.

Exactly. If that person is GMing, then the actual tasks of GMing aren't as hard as presented, but rather our preferences that add the difficulty.

Both of the campaigns I'm running have pretty good tables, but even the excellent players there make mistakes.

Perfection is not a requirement of any of my positions. I don't think 'mistakes' attribute to the duties of a GM. Mistakes tend to cut both ways, and tend to be obvious.

Every time a player asks you "Can I [verb]?" they're asking a rules question. They're asking for your judgment. Judgment isn't necessarily hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it easy, either. It's nice when the players know the rules for their own characters, but sometimes situations or odd unexpected interactions arise, and ti's good to have enough of a handle on the rules to be able to handle those.

But, here's the rub, you're choosing to accept those questions. @iserith has a great read on not playing questions in a game, because it's the player's job to declare actions, not ask questions. If you accept players asking "can I" to get likelihoods, then that's your choice, not required by the rules. You could say, "you have to declare an action" and have them then try things in character to find out what they can do.

Now, if they're asking a rules question, as in 'do the rules allow..." then I think it's fair to have them read it and present a case to the table. You can make a ruling if there's a legitimate question. This isn't any different than if playing Monopoly, though -- it's handled however the social contract sets it up. If you've set up your social contract that you, the GM, are the sole source, then that's on you. Having the rulebook say you're the final authority on the rules doesn't mean that you can't delegate, or that you must know the rules. Heck, if you make stuff up, that's by the rules, right? How much easier can you get than 'make stuff up?'

Sure, and that's why there's been some discussion about homebrew adventures versus published. Some GMs have the time, energy, and inclination to make their own settings/adventures; others don't. It's another way of choosing your workload. It's absolutely within a GM's rights to take steps to reduce their workload.

Which means that the difficulty of what material is run is a choice by the GM, and not a requirement? Rhetorical, my answer is 'yes.'

I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.

I think GMing is different from playing, and is a different challenge, but I'm not convinced it's "hard". "Harder" is, well, not terribly helpful, because that may mean a little bit harder or lots harder and opinions in this thread have differed. I think the players actually have more rules to follow than the GM. Being the final authority doesn't mean more work, it just means you have control over it. However much work you want to put into that control is up to you -- you can farm it out to the table or a specific player, you can make stuff up on the fly, you can study and consider and write up papers... lots of options, but all up to the GM. If we're including the things that we choose to pick up as adding to the core difficulty of the task, then I think we're making a error. But, it's the collection of theses we pick up on our own and attribute to the actual task that build the myth that GMing is hard work and players don't have much to do, and so on that creates a systemic and structural, but unintentional, barrier to entry to the GM club.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're using gatekeeping in a manner that is very much outside the norm. Almost everyone else uses gatekeeping to mean the deliberate effort of limiting access to something and the way you use it to describe any barrier leads to confusion.

I don't use it to describe any barrier. I use it to describe unnecessary barriers to entry. Most of the examples given of how GMing is hard are actually unnecessary to the task of GMing.

You can refer to the structural and system roadblocks as barriers instead of gatekeeping (at least when it's not a deliberate effort to exclude people). The main books for FFG's Star Wars line retails for $60 and for some people that is a barrier to entry but it's not gatekeeping. If a young woman asks me if she can join my Edge of the Empire game and I grill her to ascertain her grasp of Star Wars trivia I am gatekeeping.

Sure, but I'm not talking about the cost of books.

The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does. However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.

This is an assumption, one that removes the effort from one group and adds to to another for no good reason other than tradition. Players have many responsibilities, it's just that the general zeitgeist is to not expect much from a player or hold them to account. The GM's job is vastly simpler if you remove the assumption that they have to police or entertain the players all on their lonesome. This is one of those persistent ideas that adds to the unnecessary burden of the GM and helps prevent entry.

 

[prabe]

Perfection is not a requirement of any of my positions. I don't think 'mistakes' attribute to the duties of a GM. Mistakes tend to cut both ways, and tend to be obvious.

Sure, GMs make mistakes. I've made some (and I've apologized to the tables for them). I think a GM's mistake has a higher likelihood of blowing up a session or even a campaign than a player's decision (short of a decision by the players to attempt something impossible that inevitably TPKs). I guess it seems in my experience as though it works better socially if the GM is the one enforcing the game rules, to keep the players all roughly equal with each other (rather than having one quarterbacking or something).

But, here's the rub, you're choosing to accept those questions. @iserith has a great read on not playing questions in a game, because it's the player's job to declare actions, not ask questions. If you accept players asking "can I" to get likelihoods, then that's your choice, not required by the rules. You could say, "you have to declare an action" and have them then try things in character to find out what they can do.

Now, if they're asking a rules question, as in 'do the rules allow..." then I think it's fair to have them read it and present a case to the table. You can make a ruling if there's a legitimate question. This isn't any different than if playing Monopoly, though -- it's handled however the social contract sets it up. If you've set up your social contract that you, the GM, are the sole source, then that's on you. Having the rulebook say you're the final authority on the rules doesn't mean that you can't delegate, or that you must know the rules. Heck, if you make stuff up, that's by the rules, right? How much easier can you get than 'make stuff up?'

Here's the thing. The characters have a better understanding of the situation than the players do. I find that when a player is asking "Can I [do the thing]?" they're really asking how it would be implemented in the rules, as a way to know if it's worth trying. If I asked the first question and got slightly-smug "You can try ..." I'd ask how the GM intended to make the rules work, and if the GM didn't answer I probably wouldn't do that thing. I don't think that's the kind of play I want at my table. You want to do the thing, your character should have a good sense of whether they can do the thing, here's how I'm likely to apply the rules, see if you think your character should try to do the thing. Players being blindsided because the GM won't explain the rules as applied doesn't sound like good GMing to me, so it can't really be what you're advocating (though I think the implication is there).

And passing rules questions to the table seems like a way to bog a sessin down in half an hour of Rules Court. Hard pass.

Which means that the difficulty of what material is run is a choice by the GM, and not a requirement? Rhetorical, my answer is 'yes.'

Sure. I personally find running published adventures to be harder than homebrewing, so I guess I'm choosing my own easier path.

I think GMing is different from playing, and is a different challenge, but I'm not convinced it's "hard". "Harder" is, well, not terribly helpful, because that may mean a little bit harder or lots harder and opinions in this thread have differed. I think the players actually have more rules to follow than the GM. Being the final authority doesn't mean more work, it just means you have control over it. However much work you want to put into that control is up to you -- you can farm it out to the table or a specific player, you can make stuff up on the fly, you can study and consider and write up papers... lots of options, but all up to the GM. If we're including the things that we choose to pick up as adding to the core difficulty of the task, then I think we're making a error. But, it's the collection of theses we pick up on our own and attribute to the actual task that build the myth that GMing is hard work and players don't have much to do, and so on that creates a systemic and structural, but unintentional, barrier to entry to the GM club.

Maybe consider "hard" to mean some combination of "requires more time," "requires more effort," and "requires more bandwidth."

As a side note, it seems to me as though any of the suggestions for easing the GM's in-session workload (passing things off to the players) really seem more likely to slow the game down than anything else. Maybe keeping the session moving isn't everyone's top priority, but it's pretty close to mine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, GMs make mistakes. I've made some (and I've apologized to the tables for them). I think a GM's mistake has a higher likelihood of blowing up a session or even a campaign than a player's decision (short of a decision by the players to attempt something impossible that inevitably TPKs). I guess it seems in my experience as though it works better socially if the GM is the one enforcing the game rules, to keep the players all roughly equal with each other (rather than having one quarterbacking or something).




Here's the thing. The characters have a better understanding of the situation than the players do. I find that when a player is asking "Can I [do the thing]?" they're really asking how it would be implemented in the rules, as a way to know if it's worth trying. If I asked the first question and got slightly-smug "You can try ..." I'd ask how the GM intended to make the rules work, and if the GM didn't answer I probably wouldn't do that thing. I don't think that's the kind of play I want at my table. You want to do the thing, your character should have a good sense of whether they can do the thing, here's how I'm likely to apply the rules, see if you think your character should try to do the thing. Players being blindsided because the GM won't explain the rules as applied doesn't sound like good GMing to me, so it can't really be what you're advocating (though I think the implication is there).

And passing rules questions to the table seems like a way to bog a sessin down in half an hour of Rules Court. Hard pass.

I think I wasn't clear, here. If a player suggests an action, and you provide the difficulty, then the player should be able to change their mind, largely for tge reasons you note. This is off topic, though, and I'd rather not divert this thread into a discussion of GM techiques. Happy to discuss elsewhere.

I will leave the idea that I assume good faith in play. Anything breaks when used in bad faith. I'm not out to "gotcha" players.

Sure. I personally find running published adventures to be harder than homebrewing, so I guess I'm choosing my own easier path.




Maybe consider "hard" to mean some combination of "requires more time," "requires more effort," and "requires more bandwidth."

As a side note, it seems to me as though any of the suggestions for easing the GM's in-session workload (passing things off to the players) really seem more likely to slow the game down than anything else. Maybe keeping the session moving isn't everyone's top priority, but it's pretty close to mine.

Right, it's mostly what we choose to shoulder. Personally, I work much harder than my players, but it's all in prep. I play on a VTT these days, and the ability to have beat bells and whistles is something I like, so I spend way too much time on maps and lighting and tokens. I also homebrew monsters a lot. But, thise are my choices. I don't have to. If we theater-of-the-mind, I'd spend less time in prep that two of my players do reviewing their PCs for each session. My prep is about 5 minutes thinking of and jotting quick notes on prep, and 2 hours of building maps/monsters. Totally my call.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure? Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.

I think it can, but does not always do so. I know when I was younger, I crafted my own home brew world and our games took place in that setting, and I clung to the elements of that setting fiercely. I had a very specific idea of what I wanted the setting to be, and allowed for very little player input. In that sense, I was certainly saying that my take on the game was more important than the players'.

Over time, I've drastically loosened such expectations. I now want the setting to be a shared world, crafted by all participants. I've found that to be far more rewarding these days, and I find that it helps engage players in meaningful ways that my special homebrew world never did.

I guess I'm not sure is some let hubris in when they think that their game is the end all. I tend to think that when I used to homebrew my whole world I felt I needed to control some things and maybe some of that led me to think I was more 'right' in making the rules and being important. It may also have been that I was younger and some of that may have crept in.

Today we play with FR and I generally make my own adventures but use the shell they provide. While I do not think I have some of the same attitudes, I wonder if others have .

I'm sure that this will vary from table to table, and that there would be plenty of examples of homebrew DMs who are perfectly fine with player input, and who don't rule their setting like a tyrant. But I certainly can see how creating a setting would make it MY WORLD and using one like Forgotten Realms is very clearly different.