Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Nagol]

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.

<snip>

Oh wow, that reminds me of some GMs that thought they were really so good at the improv juggling until I sat down and pointed out the absolutely massive plot holes, refrigerator moments, and inconsistencies that had crept in like 4 sessions!

I tend to keep very close track on things as I am constantly looking for patterns in hopes of finding something to exploit. I had to stop because absolutely nothing was lining up. I began to feel like I was either in a demented nightmare or was a paranoid schizophrenic seeing connections where none existed. Letting go and treating each scene as independent made things easier, but was very unrewarding.

 

[Nagol]

@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)?

Everything gets easier with practice, but I don't expect it to get much better. I started running non-D&D games within a year of starting Holmes Basic. It's not like I only know a single trick.

Processing people is hard for me. Not hard in the sense I can't do it, more hard in the sense I get exhausted quickly.

My current game I'm running as a unholy offspring-- very heavy improv with strong guiderails for the mission. It works for me because I am able to avoid the constant pressure / room reading / consequence snowball. Having each mission be strongly episodic and contained helps control inconsistent presentation and maintain long-term coherence.

 

[Imaro]

@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)?

I think repetition will make anything easier... that said I'm not sure I actually enjoy running games like BitD it feels like work in the moment and while I and my group have enjoyed the sessions but they aren't wowing us and it's not at the point where I consider running them to be fun yet. I think that's the biggest hurdle, for me (even now with BitD)... continuing with something that for all intents and purposes is supposed to be a leisure activity but feels more like work than fun during actual play.

 

[prabe]

@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)?

I don't doubt that there's some hardware differences that lead to different people being more comfortable running different games, because they require something like different forms of processing, but I also think there's something analagous to imprinting (like baby ducks): The first game you run is on some level the game you expect to run thereafter, regardless of what it says on the cover and/or the pages. It's possible to retrain yourself to run differently, but it does take practice; I think the sort of flexibility to run multiple systems is a different thing, though also attainable with practice.

Taste preferences are a different thing, and probably more like software than hardware, and may be reflections of experiences at or away from the game table. Maybe you really don't like when people press your buttons, and being (for example) Compelled in Fate feels too much like that for you to enjoy the game when it happens. If you try to run Fate, you probably won't use Compels in the way the game expects you to, and the game probably won't work quite right without it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

But for all the nitpicking that might get involved, most people understand that the host has more obligations than the guests, and so, no matter how much the guests might chip in, even if they stick around and clean, even if they bring a bottle of wine and some apps, it's still more work to throw a party, and there are always more people willing to go to a party than there are people willing to throw a party.

And to continue this analogy (or something): Even if you're not prepping the adventures, and you're letting the players/characters determine the direction/s of play, each player really is primarily responding to you; you are responding to all the players, both as individuals and as a group. You've traded the time you've saved in prep for requiring more bandwidth to run. If that works for you and everyone else around the table, that's awesome. I personally find that even in my own more-narrative 5E games, I need to keep my prep under my feet, so to speak, or things start to stop making sense.

 

[Nagol]

I don't doubt that there's some hardware differences that lead to different people being more comfortable running different games, because they require something like different forms of processing, but I also think there's something analagous to imprinting (like baby ducks): The first game you run is on some level the game you expect to run thereafter, regardless of what it says on the cover and/or the pages. It's possible to retrain yourself to run differently, but it does take practice; I think the sort of flexibility to run multiple systems is a different thing, though also attainable with practice.

Taste preferences are a different thing, and probably more like software than hardware, and may be reflections of experiences at or away from the game table. Maybe you really don't like when people press your buttons, and being (for example) Compelled in Fate feels too much like that for you to enjoy the game when it happens. If you try to run Fate, you probably won't use Compels in the way the game expects you to, and the game probably won't work quite right without it.

I have run dozens of systems. Most were run to test drive the system and see how it performs in actual play. I have a stable of about 10 I tend to fall back to for any single campaign (1e, Hero, Unisystem, Dungeonworld, Aftermath, Ars Magica, Pendragon, BESM, FATE) and I choose a system that best matches the table experience I'm looking for.

When I was learning to run RPGs, the idea I'd stick to a single game never really crossed my mind any more than playing a single board game.

 

[Nagol]

Eh. I think a lot of the dispute goes back to the original .... framing (heh) of the post. Is the DM the most important person at the table?

That's a lot like asking, "Is the host the most important person at the party?"

Sure, people can get caught up in all sorts of side debates, for example-

1. Can you have a party without guests? Since you can't, how can the host be more important?

2. Doesn't the host get better at throwing parties over time? So a host that throws a lot of parties won't be nearly as stressed out, right?

3. Doesn't the type of party matter? Look, if you're throwing a potluck that invites the guest to participate in crafting the nar... um, party, isn't it all about equal?


...and so on. But for all the nitpicking that might get involved, most people understand that the host has more obligations than the guests, and so, no matter how much the guests might chip in, even if they stick around and clean, even if they bring a bottle of wine and some apps, it's still more work to throw a party, and there are always more people willing to go to a party than there are people willing to throw a party.

...and that's okay, because some people just enjoy throwing parties. Doesn't make them important.

It makes them important to know if you like attending parties!

 

[prabe]

I have run dozens of systems. Most were run to test drive the system and see how it performs in actual play. I have a stable of about 10 I tend to fall back to for any single campaign (1e, Hero, Unisystem, Dungeonworld, Aftermath, Ars Magica, Pendragon, BESM, FATE) and I choose a system that best matches the table experience I'm looking for.

When I was learning to run RPGs, the idea I'd stick to a single game never really crossed my mind any more than playing a single board game.

I expect you've played/run at tables where there were more options on the table than I have. I just haven't played at tables with that kind of breadth. I've played enough to be able to figure out how a given system works within a session or two (mostly), but I just don't have the brainspace to try to run ten different games. I suspect I'd get tripped up by different games using the same words to mean different things.

 

[Nagol]

I expect you've played/run at tables where there were more options on the table than I have. I just haven't played at tables with that kind of breadth. I've played enough to be able to figure out how a given system works within a session or two (mostly), but I just don't have the brainspace to try to run ten different games. I suspect I'd get tripped up by different games using the same words to mean different things.

The worst time I have is when running variations of the same basic engine (different editions of Hero, or D&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.X, for examples). The similarities are enough that I will cross-wire mechanics/jargon.