Is the DM the most important person at the table

[pemerton]

It appears we still disagree on some things, which is good

Sure - disagreement is normal in the aesthetic/critical domain!

One thing that you, @Manbearcat, @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @chaochou - to point to some regulars in these outings - all have in common, that I don't, is serious PbtA play experience. I've played a bit but not a lot of Dungeon World (online, Manbearcat GMing). The closest I've come to GMing it is running Classic Traveller treating the various subsystems as "moves" (though with more baroque structures than the elegance of PbtA) and my pre-rolled worlds and NPCs as my "fronts". Which isn't as un-close as it might seem at first, but is still a good distance from the real thing. (And crucially lacks the PC development aspect of PbtA.)

That lack of experience is probably one reason why more than anyone else in these threads I see framing and finality of resolution(upthread I called it "conflict resolution" - same diff from my point of view) as so fundamental. With "fail forward" narration of adverse consequences coming a pretty close second (and feeding right back into framing). Because (while I didn't have the vocabulary to describe it) focused but open-ended framing and "fail forward" were the key techniques I stumbled onto in the latter part of the 80s and worked on through the 90s to improve my own RPGing experience; and (again without having had the vocabulary to describe it) a lack of finality short of GM decides we're done now was a recurring problem (mostly in Rolemaster play) which BW's "Let it Ride", 4e skill challenges, HeroWars/Quest, and other systems really helped me identify and sort out in my own play. (And let me appreciate other, older systems that had mostly solved the issue without me having notice it, like Classic Traveller.)

My preconceptions have been honed by experiences and ideas that really peaked around 2005-9: "no myth"-ish, scene-framed play.

 

[pemerton]

A separate post that's maybe more on-topic:

If someone asked me what's hard about GMing that might make it harder than playing, even playing well, I would say juggling the fiction.

There are probably 3 or 4 aspects of that (categorising this stuff will always be a bit arbitrary):

* Keeping track of stuff (ie elements of the fiction, whether established or incipient) available and/or necessary to frame scenes;​

​

* Keeping track of stuff available for consequences (if none of this is salient to the players, they won't feel much pressure and play might be a bit listless or "draggy");​

​

* Keeping track of stuff actually introduced as consequences;​

​

* When there are multiple things going on (eg group (a) is on the bridge of their starship while group (b) explores the abandoned space station), moving back and forth across players to try and keep everyone involved, which requires keeping track of and preferably interweaving parallel unfolding situations.​

After juggling the fiction, the other thing that I personally find sometimes challenges me as a GM is fitting what is going on into the mechanics. This isn't hard as the above, though, because the players can be recruited to help with it - even if it's just pointing to a skill or similar entry on their PC sheet that makes sense as a starting point for resolution.

 

[Imaro]

To be fair, in order for the DM to do less work, the players need to step up and take some of the burden. If you have D&D trained players where they are more or less expected by everything published by the game to sit back and passively lap up whatever the DM doles out from the plot wagon, then, yup, the DM's going to have to shoulder much of the burden. It's like @MGibster said - he can "tell" when the DM hasn't prepped. Why can he tell? Probably because his group isn't pro-active enough to take the burden of preparation away from the DM.

Which is why people point to non-D&D games here. Many of the non-D&D games, particularly the indie ones, tend to shift the GMing responsibilities away from any single person at the table. D&D, and other very traditional games, don't. Look at the advice for D&D, stretching back to the first issue of The Strategic Review and you'll see pages and pages and more pages of how the DM creates the adventure, campaign, world, etc. Virtually no advice on how to get the players to be more pro-active and take more responsibility for what happens at the table. Where's the section in the Player's Handbook that tells the players, "Hey, this is YOUR game too. Which means, with great power comes great responsibility. Get off your ass and contribute more than just reacting to the DM." Even things like Backgrounds and whatnot are a tacked on afterthought - a couple of pages AFTER you buy your sword.

In a more player driven game, Backgrounds, Themes, and that sort of thing should be the FIRST thing you develop for your character, not the last.

So as long as you adopt a particular playstyle (player driven vs. DM driven) DM/GM'ing isn't harder than playing and it isn't a more important role than a player... Does that sum it up or am I misunderstanding something?

This in turn means you need to find a specific type of player willing to take on some of the DM'ing responsibilities (of course their reason for playing as opposed to running could be that they don't want to take on said responsibilities), which may in and of itself (because it's not the traditional/expected way to play D&D) be hard or nearly impossible. You need to be good at heavy improv (a skill not everyone posseses as well as being a style many may not enjoy) since you're not doing any planning but instead letting the players drive. As a DM/GM you need to be able to take pretty extensive notes while playing since you're effectively making stuff up as you go, unless consistency isn't a worry. I just don't see this as necessarily easier just different and harder than playing in different ways from running in a traditional manner. I also don't see how this eliminates the DM as the most important role...

 

[Imaro]

I find that asking 'who's going to play' is really the first question.

Play what if you haven't gotten someone to agree to run something?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Play what if you haven't gotten someone to agree to run something?

Play what if no one's playing?

 

[Imaro]

Play what if no one's playing?

Type of players again depends on the game, playstyle, etc.... so that would be determined by what's being run which in turn would be determined by whose running it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Type of players again depends on the game, playstyle, etc.... so that would be determined by what's being run which in turn would be determined by whose running it.

So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?

 

[Imaro]

So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?

GM and player roles are distinctly different in (if not all) the vast majority of roleplaying games. Let's not play pedantic games here.

 

[Nagol]

So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?

Pretty much. I won't run comedy or horror so if a group of players approaches me to run Teenagers from Outer Space again, they're out of luck. Similarly, I won't play CoC, so if a group is forming and someone says they'll run CoC,, I'm out.

Ultimately, the table is formed of a GM and those players who are willing to play what is on offer and with each other. Since play preferences are a thing, they affect the ultimate table composition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's hard enough I've seen GMs step down from the role to play in essentially the same style of game because they couldn't maintain their current situation whether that's because of physical infirmary, emotional turmoil, or overwork. They stepped down to player because it was easier than continuing to run. In some cases, they returned to GM when their personal situations changed. Other times, they happily remained players even when the direct causes had been dealt with because they found it more fulfilling and easier. I have never had a player say "Playing is too hard right now. How about I GM instead?"

Sure, people take breaks from things all the time. I've seen players bow out, too, for a variety of reasons. I've seen similar things with other activities, too. That stuff happens.

Again, I'm not saying that GMing is easier than playing, or even as easy as playing. I'm saying that it's easier than many think, and it should not (or maybe need not) be significantly more difficult than playing.

And I think the idea of "more difficult" is pretty subjective, as well, which is causing some disagreement. I think the GM has more to do, and that is something I think many are focusing on as "proof" that the role is harder, but I don't really see it that way. Yes, there is more to do. None of it is individually all that hard....it's just managing it all that can be a challenge.

Which is why I'm an advocate for having less to manage.

When I prep for 1e, I know I'm going to spending a fair amount of time pre-game mapping, establishing foreshadow clues, and placing items, clues, treasure, and creatures.

That's all fine. I'm all for whatever works for people. I generally don't create maps ahead of time unless there's a compelling reason to do so.....like maybe a dungeon delve where the specific location of everything matters, or if there's going to be a tactically meaningful combat where I want to have an idea of how to construct it before drawing it at the table on the battle mat.

I think the manner of prep will depend on what the expected content will be for a given session.

What do you do if your players, for whatever reason, decide not to engage with the material you've prepared?

To go back to my asylum example, if they decide to not go in for some reason, I have a few other ideas that are currently possible, and I'll adapt and do what I need to depending on what the PCs do. But if I drew out a map and populated treasure and creatures onto it, I feel like I'd be more inclined to make sure it was used. How do you avoid that?

When I prep for a Champions campaign, I know I have more up-front world development than 1e, and probably just as much pre-game prep -- it is just moved to relationships, NPC involvement, PC highlighting, and antagonist development.

I have little to none of that when I run Dungeonworld or FATE. But I find running Dungeonworld or FATE hard compared to the first two games.

The adjudication is a lot tougher because I have entirely different considerations: narrative flow, framing constant action, establishing and maintaining pressure without being overwhelming, not pigeon-holing the group or leading it to my desired outcome, off the cuff presentation of interesting situations full of levers for the players to use, and reading the audience are tougher than the disinterested adjudication I need to pursue in 1e or the PC focused reveals and relationship highlights performed in Champions. I find the extra control I need to take over scene framing and consequence assignment much more draining.

I'm not familiar with Champions, and I've only minimal experience with Dungeonworld, but I think most games require a shift in preparation depending on the expectations of play. Many of these will be system dependent, and others will be table dependent.

Part of that is inexperience: I've only run a dozen of so Dungeonworld and FATE games compared to the decades of experience I have in 1e and Champions. Part of it is personality: I prefer the roles of designer, adjudicator, and audience to being the group foil and scene framer.

Now, as I continue to run Dungeonworld and FATE, will it get easier? Almost certainly. But that's because it is hard right now.

Sure, I expect it will. Now imagine you went online for guidance, and everyone said "no, it won't get easier.....it's always hard. There's nothing you can do about that." I mean, in your last post you pointed out that some of the things I'm talking about are ideas not available to new GMs.....but here I am sharing them so any possible new GMs will see them, and you seem resistant to that just to maintain the idea that GMing is hard. That's odd to me.

I think that's the general trend of posts here, and that's what I disagree with. Regardless of game or the experience level of the GM, everyone's game can likely be made to be easier in some way. There are tricks or techniques or tweaks that can be made that can improve the game in some way by easing the burden of the GM.

I think that is really all I'm saying, and sharing some of the things that have helped me do that, and hoping to come across more that may prove useful.