Is the DM the most important person at the table

[hawkeyefan]

Yup. And, letting go of a long held tradition is hard. It's a big mental shift to go from decades of D&D to realizing that you don't have to. Other games can help this, but I see lots of people bounce off of other games because they don't make the shift. And, that's okay. Took me a good few tries before it clicked, and, honestly, I think a lot of that was due to arguing around here, at least a reasonable chunk of which was against you. It appears we still disagree on some things, which is good, but at least I understand where you're coming from whereas before I really didn't.

Oh, is this one of those things that never happens when discussing theory or on message boards? Someone says, "hey, you helped change my mind!" Should we tag @Umbran?

I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!

I've even read some of it!

 

[Nagol]

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.



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?



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.



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.

I think we just have different definitions of hard. If multiple people have expressed an interest in doing X rather than Y because Y is harder for them then I'm happy to call Y hard. If Y can be tamed over time with experience, great! That doesn't make it not-hard. Many people consider differential calculus hard, but it's really simple if you have the right mindset and know the rules. That doesn't make it less hard.

Saying "It's not as hard as people think!" is mostly meaningless since we aren't telepaths who have conducted extensive studies. It is perceived hard enough that only a small percentage of players try to GM and actually hard enough that only a portion of those continue even in groups with support systems.

 

[Nagol]

I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!

I've even read some of it!

Just make sure you don't get the first edition. When @pemerton and @Manbearcat were originally talking about how great the game was, I couldn't figure out how this (fairly poor) D&D heartbreaker game was worth the time.

Let's just say... it changed radically.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just make sure you don't get the first edition. When @pemerton and @Manbearcat were originally talking about how great the game was, I couldn't figure out how this (fairly poor) D&D heartbreaker game was worth the time.

Let's just say... it changed radically.

While I certainly appreciate it and enjoyed it the few times I ran revised (I never ran the original), but @pemerton is the BW guy. I prefer Mouse Guard and Torchbearer. Plenty of overlap, but lots of difference in, genre, mechanical nuance, and structure of play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

I'd say the same to you. GM is a role a player of the game takes. Just because you want to skip ahead to role assignments because you think it supports your point doesn't mean it does. You have to have a player to assign a role. And if you only have one role assigned, you still don't have a game.

 

[Imaro]

I'd say the same to you. GM is a role a player of the game takes. Just because you want to skip ahead to role assignments because you think it supports your point doesn't mean it does. You have to have a player to assign a role. And if you only have one role assigned, you still don't have a game.

We've been using them distinctly for the majority of this discussion... now you're trying to use pedantry to what... exactly? score points? Confuse the issue... what?

 

[Manbearcat]

Interesting discussion. I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:

1) GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not. Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.

2) Being in a game where you have to heavily advocate for both your PC and the needs of your group (whether that be thematic decision-points, strategic decision-points, or tactical decision-points) while understanding the rules (and maybe even helping the GM in their correct deployment)...that always requires significant mental engagement and therefore never becomes passive or "easy."

3) Being a player in a game where the rules are just there to (a) make it feel like you're actively participating in gamestate-changing decision-points and action resolution (b) while the GM is heavily using covert Force to manipulate the gamestate and tell a story...that is a comparatively passive and "easy" experience.

---

Personally, once you become significantly skillful and confident in running a game, I don't think the difference between (1) and (2) becomes an overwhelmingly thing, except in the rare cases where (a) you're running a granular hexcrawl and you have to manage a lot of high resolution information along with (b) a lot of rules interactions.

Once you're good at it, running Dogs, Blades, Dungeon World, and 4e are CONSIDERABLY less mentally taxing and table time intensive than a 1e, Expert, RC, 3.x, 5e hexcrawl.

 

[Nagol]

Interesting discussion. I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:

1) GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not. Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.

2) Being in a game where you have to heavily advocate for both your PC and the needs of your group (whether that be thematic decision-points, strategic decision-points, or tactical decision-points) while understanding the rules (and maybe even helping the GM in their correct deployment)...that always requires significant mental engagement and therefore never becomes passive or "easy."

3) Being a player in a game where the rules are just there to (a) make it feel like you're actively participating in gamestate-changing decision-points and action resolution (b) while the GM is heavily using covert Force to manipulate the gamestate and tell a story...that is a comparatively passive and "easy" experience.

---

Personally, once you become significantly skillful and confident in running a game, I don't think the difference between (1) and (2) becomes an overwhelmingly thing, except in the rare cases where (a) you're running a granular hexcrawl and you have to manage a lot of high resolution information along with (b) a lot of rules interactions.

Once you're good at it, running Dogs, Blades, Dungeon World, and 4e are CONSIDERABLY less mentally taxing and table time intensive than a 1e, Expert, RC, 3.x, 5e hexcrawl.

I tend to disagree. I think it mostly matters what you are good at processing. As I pointed out above, I have a much harder time running Dungeonworld and FATE than 1e or Champions simply because I find maintaining constant pressure and scene framing without forcing much more taxing than disinterested adjudication. (as an aside, the issue I've brought up about Dungeonworld reflects a tendency of mine that I constantly have to fight when I'm running -- hence my being a strong stickler for 'a failure means failure'.)

One of the reasons my count of Dungeonworld games is so low is I am loath to commit to running a long-term game. I'll run it for one-shots and short hauls, but there is just too much mental investment for me to do it week after week. It is too intensive to be considered fun.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting discussion. I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:

1) GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not. Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.

I think this is highly dependent upon the person, something I think really isn't being examined enough by those who believe indie games are "easier' to run than traditional... IME they're the people that FATE, PbtA and other indie games just don't click for. I think that for some they just aren't wired to handle constant on the fly improvisation, it never becomes easy for them to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated by said consequences (along with simpler the fiction also generated by simpler action declarations). More importantly they don't have fun running a game in this manner. As an example I don't think a DM with anxiety issues would feel comfortable enough to run in this manner very well (mush less consider it something fun to do). I think for many, though it may be more intensive prep wise (and much less so while running the game), it is easier to have something they can fall back on as a foundation...whether that is an entire adventure path or simply the bullet point notes that @hawkeyefan spoke to earlier.

2) Being in a game where you have to heavily advocate for both your PC and the needs of your group (whether that be thematic decision-points, strategic decision-points, or tactical decision-points) while understanding the rules (and maybe even helping the GM in their correct deployment)...that always requires significant mental engagement and therefore never becomes passive or "easy."

I agree... again with my caveat above (very dependent on the person) but I find it interesting you think this can never become passive or easy through repetition but GM'ing can... why is that?

3) Being a player in a game where the rules are just there to (a) make it feel like you're actively participating in gamestate-changing decision-points and action resolution (b) while the GM is heavily using covert Force to manipulate the gamestate and tell a story...that is a comparatively passive and "easy" experience.

Emphasis mine... not sure anyone is talking about games where this happens... I think you may be assuming here.

Once you're good at it, running Dogs, Blades, Dungeon World, and 4e are CONSIDERABLY less mentally taxing and table time intensive than a 1e, Expert, RC, 3.x, 5e hexcrawl.

Again for certain people maybe... but I find Blades easy to prep for (I don't really do anything beforehand) but mentally draining and much harder to consistently run at the table vs. D&D 5e which I find harder to prep for but much easier to run, especially as the game progresses.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Nagol and @Imaro

That's fair.

There is definitely an "innate hardware" aspect of it that will make some folks better or worse at running different styles of play.

However, while neither of you may ever feel like you're as proficient at running Blades/Dogs as you are at running 1e/5e games, don't you think it would become considerably easier with time? Perhaps to the point that a not-insignificant portion of the mental drain/stress you feel while running them would fade (perhaps you don't think so)?