Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Ovinomancer]

And if you have to resort to the type of pedantry where suddenly you don't understand or choose not to acknowledge that player and GM have been used as two different types of participants in a roleplaying game for the entire conversation up to this point... there's not much left for us to say to one another. So yeah, whatevs you win buddy.

I don't understand this. GM and Player are both roles assigned to players of a game. I'm not entirely sure why you keep saying I don't understand the difference. Is it because Player and player are similar? Fine, let's go with GM and Player only as roles and dispense with any concept that we have players with roles and just treat them as the Roles -- independent and unique. Where does that leave us? Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game. That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned. Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next. There's already a game agreed to without having a GM. So, even if we go with your argument, it's doesn't hold water.

I haven't commented on your personal experience at all so not sure what your point is here and honestly I'm a little tired of trying to figure it out so I'll bow out of this conversation... again your anecdotal experience must be the experience of the majority so you win.

Never made that claim. You made a blanket statement of fact. I initially tried to make a humorous comment to show that it's not actually as blanket as you were presenting it. Now, I showed it doesn't hold in at least one case. That shows that, despite any assumed majority (nice that you get to claim it's on your side), it's not a blanket statement of fact. End of point. You've seemingly been on a mission to accuse me of many different things for daring to contest a blanket statement I knew to not be true through personal experience. Never once claimed my experience was universal or even shared. Go back, look at what I said. You've made a choice, and that wasn't to engage with what I said, but to fight it, no matter what.

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand this. GM and Player are both roles assigned to players of a game. I'm not entirely sure why you keep saying I don't understand the difference. Is it because Player and player are similar? Fine, let's go with GM and Player only as roles and dispense with any concept that we have players with roles and just treat them as the Roles -- independent and unique. Where does that leave us? Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game. That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned. Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next. There's already a game agreed to without having a GM. So, even if we go with your argument, it's doesn't hold water.



Never made that claim. You made a blanket statement of fact. I initially tried to make a humorous comment to show that it's not actually as blanket as you were presenting it. Now, I showed it doesn't hold in at least one case. That shows that, despite any assumed majority (nice that you get to claim it's on your side), it's not a blanket statement of fact. End of point. You've seemingly been on a mission to accuse me of many different things for daring to contest a blanket statement I knew to not be true through personal experience. Never once claimed my experience was universal or even shared. Go back, look at what I said. You've made a choice, and that wasn't to engage with what I said, but to fight it, no matter what.

Congratulations again you've proven something that most of us already know (and I said quite a while back)... that nothing in the world is 100%... this is exactly why some of us were advocating a discussion around the majority or most popular behavior(s) because otherwise you get an endless stream of posts about how whatever you state doesn't hold for 100% of the hobby, even if it holds for 99.9%... and no actual discussion. Like I said you win there's always an exception. Glad you were able to teach us all that.

 

[Lanefan]

Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game.

Yeah, that'd be my argument too; as I've never seen it done any other way.

That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned.

Again, never happened IME.

Here the GM will often spend a long time (as in, many months) in worldbuilding, rules wrangling, and other various prep before even getting to the point of inviting players in. And even in cases where the pre-game prep has been quite short (as in, a few weeks or even less) it still comes down to a GM inviting players in.

Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next.

Closest I've ever come to this was when I was running a game and another GM took it over more or less on the fly with the same party, PCs, and backstory; with me becoming a player.

 

[pemerton]

a minor detail created in the moment I thought of as throw away is suddenly something they want to leverage three sessions later

If this occurs, often the notes the players took will be adequate, won't they? I mean, they're not going to try and leverage stuff they didn't know about or have forgotten about.

If everyone's memory is a bit hazy (that happens sometimes at my table) then a collective conversation can hash out the details.

 

[Hussar]

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?

If you want to frame it that way. Sure. I can see it.

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.

Then that player is a garbage player who I'd rather not see in the hobby. If you're not willing to put forth the effort in order to ensure that the group has a great game, then, well, go play video games. I agree that this is the tradition way D&D has been presented. I think that it has been a massive disservice to the hobby to present it that way.

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.

Tweet. Foul on the field. False dichotomy. Ten yard penalty, repeat third down. No one said "you're not doing any planning". That's a mistake in interpreting what I said. Allowing the players to take some of the burden does not mean that they take all of it.

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...

Again, why are you relying on the DM for that? Why aren't players taking notes? We have wiki's for a reason. It's not 1976 anymore. Every player should be contributing notes (presumably if you have a note heavy game) after a session because every player should be invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly. A player that wants to passively consume D&D is far, far better served by a CRPG than any tabletop game. Pony up time. The free ride is over.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and then figured out who was going to GM. Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it. I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?

Sure! I've seen a group of people become interested in playing, get together, and work out the logistics.

I've also seen (and been in) groups that had exactly the same enthusiasm get together and then sputter out and go on to separate activities. The difference? No one wanted to GM.

It's almost as if... a certain role is necessary and important for a viable group to be able to form and function. Without it, the group morphs into a different activity or splits apart.

 

[Sadras]

Generally the GM attempts to organise a table, hosts, invites/introduces people into the hobby, purchases the necessary RPG books, introduces new RPGs to their playgroup, is involved in some sort of prep for sessions, perhaps updates an online page about the campaign, keeps notes, attempts to build a cohesive story, keeps the momentum going by organising dates, runs the game and is the referee. Yeah, not the most important.

Feel free to provide us with your anecdotal evidence in an attempt to reflect something contrary to the use of my word Generally.

 

[Hussar]

Generally the GM attempts to organise a table, hosts, invites/introduces people into the hobby, purchases the necessary RPG books, introduces new RPGs to their playgroup, is involved in some sort of prep for sessions, perhaps updates an online page about the campaign, keeps notes, attempts to build a cohesive story, keeps the momentum going by organising dates, runs the game and is the referee. Yeah, not the most important.

Feel free to provide us with your anecdotal evidence in an attempt to reflect something contrary to the use of my word Generally.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. That's certainly how D&D is presented and always has been. That's what Gygax and co did back in the day - whether Castle Greyhawk or whatever. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of DMing advice in Dragon Magazine, stretching back to pretty much day 1 that says that what you just outlined above is the way it is done.

The problem is, that procedure isn't necessarily the best approach to gaming. It's the first way it was done and, let's be honest, it works. So, it largely doesn't get examined too much, at least, not in mainstream RPG's. It isn't until fairly recently that you start seeing games building into the game itself the notion that it's not the GM's responsiblity to do 99% of the work. Games like Blades in the Dark, or various other games now, are approaching the notion of "campaign" from a very different angle where the players work collaboratively with the GM to build a campaign together.

And, frankly, I think it really has done a disservice to the hobby to maintain that paradigm where the DM takes on all that workload. There's no reason for it really. It certainly doesn't HAVE to be that way. It would be good if gaming advice, and things like the DMG, would present the material in such a way that you are encouraged to share the work amongst everyone at the table. Heck, even the notion that you have a DM's Guide and a Player's Handbook is somewhat the problem. Teach players that they are equally responsible for the game and the game will be 1000 times better for it.

 

[GameOgre]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. That's certainly how D&D is presented and always has been. That's what Gygax and co did back in the day - whether Castle Greyhawk or whatever. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of DMing advice in Dragon Magazine, stretching back to pretty much day 1 that says that what you just outlined above is the way it is done.

The problem is, that procedure isn't necessarily the best approach to gaming. It's the first way it was done and, let's be honest, it works. So, it largely doesn't get examined too much, at least, not in mainstream RPG's. It isn't until fairly recently that you start seeing games building into the game itself the notion that it's not the GM's responsiblity to do 99% of the work. Games like Blades in the Dark, or various other games now, are approaching the notion of "campaign" from a very different angle where the players work collaboratively with the GM to build a campaign together.

And, frankly, I think it really has done a disservice to the hobby to maintain that paradigm where the DM takes on all that workload. There's no reason for it really. It certainly doesn't HAVE to be that way. It would be good if gaming advice, and things like the DMG, would present the material in such a way that you are encouraged to share the work amongst everyone at the table. Heck, even the notion that you have a DM's Guide and a Player's Handbook is somewhat the problem. Teach players that they are equally responsible for the game and the game will be 1000 times better for it.

So go ahead. Give us some advice on this subject grounded in D&D 5E.How should the players be equally responsible? In what way? I just spent four hours making my groups next adventure. How do I get each player to put in there four hours?What do they spend that time doing? How does a player become equally responsible?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, that'd be my argument too; as I've never seen it done any other way.

Again, never happened IME.

Here the GM will often spend a long time (as in, many months) in worldbuilding, rules wrangling, and other various prep before even getting to the point of inviting players in. And even in cases where the pre-game prep has been quite short (as in, a few weeks or even less) it still comes down to a GM inviting players in.

Closest I've ever come to this was when I was running a game and another GM took it over more or less on the fly with the same party, PCs, and backstory; with me becoming a player.

Yeah, this has been my experience as well. When a campaign ends, we ask "Okay, who wants to run the next game?" The new GM will then propose what they are interested in running (or poll the group, if they don't have any ideas).

I'm not suggesting that there aren't groups that do so differently, just that it's never been the case for any of my groups.

If this occurs, often the notes the players took will be adequate, won't they? I mean, they're not going to try and leverage stuff they didn't know about or have forgotten about.

If everyone's memory is a bit hazy (that happens sometimes at my table) then a collective conversation can hash out the details.

It's less than ideal if you're trying to build long term story lines but might not remember an important detail in the moment. For example, in one of my groups two of the players went on their honeymoon recently, so we didn't play. There had been some scheduling issues prior to that as well (Superbowl, etc.) so last weekend was the first time we gamed in over a month and I was really shakey on the details.

Thankfully, I was able to skim over my session notes and remind myself of everything that had transpired that I consider relevant to the campaign. If a player had taken the notes, they might not even have been available to me between sessions, and even had they been it would have been totally up to fate whether they'd grok'd all of the relevant details or skipped something that seemed trivial then but would bear fruit down the road (I like to use foreshadowing).

For example, in the session before last they met an old miner 49er NPC who I made up on the spot. The party paladin took a liking to him, and after a brief conversation, gave him a 50 gp gem to fund his next expedition. They're only 3rd level, so that's a lot of money to him (he's still saving for plate mail). A month of two down the line though, he's going to find that the miner has hit it rich, and is quite grateful to the paladin. I'd never remember such a minor detail without my notes. The paladin player might note it down, but if another player were taking notes they could easily think a minor NPC like that were merely set dressing.

There are some tasks that I might consider offloading to my players because they aren't critical. Like initiative. Although I wouldn't actually offload initiative because I have a streamlined system that wouldn't benefit from it.

Never my notes though. In a real sense my notes are my game (or at least a very significant portion thereof).

I suppose it is fundamentally a choice, but to me it is a choice between running a better game and a worse game, and that's really no choice at all.