Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Nagol]

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



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.
<snip>

Now there is a great example of gate-keeping!

 

[Hussar]

Players contribute to the game in many ways. YOUR way is only one of them and you are not a "crap player" if they don't play YOUR way.



Tweet! Foul on the field! False Dichotomy. 10 yard penalty. Doing things your way and equally building the dungeon or whatever, and sitting passively there are not the only two options. I can as a player not build jack, but still inform the DM that my PC is going to go north to take over the barbarian tribes and become the high chief of them all. Then I can go about taking steps to get there. I don't need to spend as much time as the DM on the game to actively take a role in the game and improve it through game play.

And, that's FANTASTIC. You are contributing. You are proactively doing something - going north to take over the barbarian tribes.

EXCELLENT. That's great. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Note, @Maxperson, I'd point out that my dungeon thing is only an option. I was asked for a piece of advice, and I gave it. It was certainly not meant to be the ONLY thing you could do.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and the Dirty Dungeon idea that I was looking for can be found here:

John Wick - The Dirty Dungeon

I just found this one. I know it's a couple of years old, but, seeing as a 20 second Google search didn't turn up any threads on EN World about this, I thought others might like to share. It's a very interesting idea on dungeon design: http://youtu.be/dsnvANYBRWo tl&dr version: Each player...

www.enworld.org

Fantastic fun.

-----

So now instead of just scheduling time for the game we need to also coordinate time to get together for prep... I still have to modify the dungeon (which I have to ask isn't this the same as pulling a dungeon of the internet an modifying it?)... with the added detriment to exploratory play that my players collectively have a pretty good idea of what's in 3/4ths of the dungeon... unless I modify heavily which in turn takes more time. Also how far does this go? Do players decide what monsters are in the dungeon? What treasures they get? Where or what traps are located there? Do they set up social encounters?

In other words I am failing to see how this greatly diminishes the workload in an exploratory game without it again morphing into a different playstyle...]

Exploratory play is hardly the only style of gaming in the world. And, since any given player will only know 1/4 of the dungeon, at best, they still get their exploration.

Why on earth would you need to schedule time for prep? Good grief, you've never heard of email? A wiki? I'm not quite sure what you're envisioning, so, follow the link below and you'll see it better. As far as what they set up, of course they set up everything in their section. Why wouldn't they?

It's not like the game doesn't have guidelines for treasure placement. You'd almost think that we're performing magic. Making a dungeon crawl isn't exactly rocket science. Yes, they decide what monsters are there, what treasure is there, where and what traps are there. Of course.

But, yeah, I can see how some folks might see this as far too threatening to their authority. We cannot possible share the workload of DMing because, if we do so, then we have to share some of the authority as well. Can't possibly have that.

 

[prabe]

Why are you presuming that getting material from the players makes the DM's job easier? I'll never know someone else's adventure material (dungeon or otherwise) as well as I know my own, and the better I know it the more comfortable I feel running it. It's not (or it doesn't feel) strictly about sharing authority, at least not for me.

As a different thought: If I'm the only one prepping, there's no need to coordinate anything with anyone; I just need to fit the time for prepping into my life. As someone who preps pen-on-paper, doing part of the prep online just seems as though it would add more work.

I'm not saying DMing is as hard as some people seem to want to make it out to be; I'm not even saying it's hard. I am saying it takes time, and it requires skills that not everyone has (and running homebrew adventures is different from running published adventures, in ways both subtle and not).

 

[Imaro]

If you don't want to contribute to the game, why are you here? If all you want to do is passively lap up whatever the DM is serving, passively sitting there, why are you playing an RPG? You can get a FAR better experience in a video game. It's objectively bad because as we see in this thread, passive players dominate the hobby and the notion of actually having to contribute more than being a warm blooded dice bot is horrific. I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who think that my function, as DM, is to provide for their entertainment.

I am contributing to the game when I play and advocate for my character... The minute I make a choice I am no longer passively lapping up what the DM is serving or passively sitting there. I am playing because I enjoy the social interaction, the opportunity for the DM to respond organically to my choices and for my choices to not be confined by what the developers coded as options.

I think there's a disconnect here... Not wanting to take on the responsibilities of a DM does not equate to a being a passive player lapping up whatever the DM is serving. In playing my character and advocating for them I am in turn adding to your entertainment as a GM. The fact that you have a particular preference for a certain type of player who participates in a specific playstyle... doesn't make those who don't share your preferences garbage players.

Well, how about ANY. How about doing more than just showing up, session after session, passively consuming whatever the DM has brought that week, expecting the DM to spend 4 hours a week to provide entertainment for the group, all the while contributing nothing more than a warm seat and a waft of Cheetos.

Well I asked because when I brought some up you said it was a strawman because you didn't specifically say all... so what exactly are we talking about here... or is this just supposed to be a general rant?

Take notes. Keep a wiki. Track what's going on session to session. Provide material for the DM. Step up with goals, family, ties, enemies, and whatever else for the DM.

IOW, stop being a passive consumer.

You seem to be confusing DM repsonsibilities and player responsibilities (which no one in this thread is arguing against). I'm finding it hard to follow exactly what you're arguing for. Because no one said players shouldn't take on the responsibilities of a player (creating goals for themselves, ties, etc.) we are discussing them taking on GM responsibilities... so could you clarify?

Yup, and that's the problem right there. The notion that there is a "most accurate account". The expectation that the DM is the one to do all the work introducing stuff. Why aren't you introducing things? Why aren't you triggering actions? Why aren't you the one driving the action in the game? The whole point of playing an RPG is the freedom to choose. Yet, if all you want to choose is whatever the DM is placing in front of you, you're far better served playing a video game than an RPG.

Wait so choosing is creating things?? Those seem like two different things that could possibly be related in some way. A player probably doesn't do those things (at least the ones traditionally in the realm of the DM) because if they wanted to... they'd probably just run a game.

You have the freedom to do virtually anything in an RPG. Yet, most players figure that it's far better to passively consume the game and expect the DM to provide everything. It's such a poison in the hobby. So much wasted effort.

Exercising choice does not equate to taking on traditional GM responsibilities... this argument isn't really making any sense at this point.

Look, I'm not saying that the DM should do nothing. Of course not. That was the misinterpretation I pointed to earlier. But, I am saying that good players get off their asses and actually contribute and lift some of the work load off the DM. I have very little patience anymore for passive consumer players. They just suck all the air out of the game.

Yeah and I think your argument may be a little muddled due to your personal bias... You seem to be arguing for choice and non-passive players but making choices and being non-passive doesn't equate to taking on what are traditionally considered GM responsibilities.

 

[Imaro]

But, yeah, I can see how some folks might see this as far too threatening to their authority. We cannot possible share the workload of DMing because, if we do so, then we have to share some of the authority as well. Can't possibly have that.

But you can't see why some players just want to play the game and not take on the responsibilities of a GM??

 

[prabe]

But you can't see why some players just want to play the game and not take on the responsibilities of a GM??

Heck, one of the guys I game is an excellent player who contributes in all the ways I would want a player to, but when he tried to DM, it tangled up with his anxiety issues in ways that were, I gather, deeply unpleasant for him. Another of the guys I game with is deeply introverted; I gather he has run in the past, and runs occasionally now, but he certainly doesn't seem as though he'd be inclined to run in a gaming store (which both my tables are).

 

[Fenris-77]

He specifically requested ideas for a running 5e game. That some versions of FATE use collaborative world-building is pretty useless in that context. Buffing inspiration may be a worthwhile endeavour for many reasons, but it isn't going to provide a multi-hour per session outlet for every player. Nor are the players likely to want a multi-hour prep-time to play the game.

It was one idea, and it works exactly as advertised. If you don't like, no worries, but it does work, and it would work for 5E. It could be worked at a bunch of different levels on an ongoing basis too, it just depends on what you want out of the idea. You could use to launch an urban-based game, or you could use it at the kingdom or province level to do the same jobs.

5e, like other editions of D&D has game conceits that include player exploratory play. Now you can bend, spindle, and fold the game engine to remove player exploratory play in favour of table exploratory play ("play to see what happens" a la FATE, Burning Wheel, or Dungeonworld), but the game tends not to act or feel the same (pretty much by definition).

You're making a distinction here between table play and player play that isn't obvious. I'm sure you have a point though, could you expand on that? I don't want to just assume what you mean. I wouldn't define those as oppositional one-or-the-other play states, but you may be.

You tend to lose site maps, pre-placed encounters, and thus any form of foreshadowing and meaningful player strategy based on discerned context, especially compared to sandbox play. AP play is easier to emulate. Which may or may not be too great a sacrifice for the table. It is for me as a player.

No you don't, or you don't have to. These things aren't somehow absent in a PbtA or FATE game. We aren't talking about a binary solution here where you're either playing one way or the other. It's a sliding scale, you can decide as the GM or as a table where you want the dial adjusted to before you start the game. It's not rocket science. I don't have any problem dropping prepped encounters into improv-heavy play, and I'm not pretending to be the king of improv. I prep stuff and then drop it out far enough ahead of the characters that it avoids issues of immediate illusionism.

5e provides none of the tools found in games where that is a specific design choice. That makes it a pretty poor cousin in comparison to games where it is the normal play.

What tools do you feel like you're lacking?

In general I think you and I differ a lot on how much bending and folding needs to be done. Also, keep in mind the two suggestions I tossed were off the top of my head. I'm happy to discuss in more detail how to make that happen in 5e, but don't assume because I didn't post in excruciating detail that I don't have something to say about that.

 

[macd21]

Well, firstly, if the players are actively engaged and responsible, you shouldn't have to put in four hours of work. So, that's a bit of an issue.

But, let's take a standard dungeon crawl. I forget what it's called now, but, I did see a system where the players each contributed a section of the dungeon. As a group. you decide what the dungeon's general theme is, and then each player goes off and builds a section. The DM then takes that and makes changes. Every change the DM makes adds a d4 to a pool (IIIRC, it was 1d4 for a small change up to a 3d4 for a big one) which the players can use to add to any die roll as they proceed through the dungeon.

Poof, ten, fifteen hours of play, 1 hour of prep for the DM. Sure, each player has a pretty good idea what's in the section they designed, but, since the DM has made changes, nothing is for sure.

Now, make that prettier, dress it up with some better language, and away you go.

It's not like these ideas are alien to the hobby. They are there. They just haven't really been incorporated into D&D, mostly because of attitudes like @Imaro's below. ((See my next post for my response to @Imaro))

See, as a DM I would hate that. And as a player, I wouldn’t find it fun.

 

[Nagol]

It was one idea, and it works exactly as advertised. If you don't like, no worries, but it does work, and it would work for 5E. It could be worked at a bunch of different levels on an ongoing basis too, it just depends on what you want out of the idea. You could use to launch an urban-based game, or you could use it at the kingdom or province level to do the same jobs.

It doesn't help an established running game. You know, the one already in a created world? It might help prior to starting a game, like the way Dresden Files presents the option. But, once a game is running and has an established world, further world-building by all participants doesn't reduce workload.

You're making a distinction here between table play and player play that isn't obvious. I'm sure you have a point though, could you expand on that? I don't want to just assume what you mean. I wouldn't define those as oppositional one-or-the-other play states, but you may be.

Player exploratory play (often described using the derogatory "Mother may I") involves the players poking and prodding at environments looking for clues as to how the environment holds together and how they can wring advantage/profit from it. The general conceit is the designer has created an interesting environment that the GM will present and adjudicate actions taken within. The players will explore it.

Table exploratory play is more like (many) games of FATE, Dungeonworld, and the ilk. No one at the table knows in advance what exists and play often is about "What is there and what do the PCs do with it?"

No you don't, or you don't have to. These things aren't somehow absent in a PbtA or FATE game. We aren't talking about a binary solution here where you're either playing one way or the other. It's a sliding scale, you can decide as the GM or as a table where you want the dial adjusted to before you start the game. It's not rocket science. I don't have any problem dropping prepped encounters into improv-heavy play, and I'm not pretending to be the king of improv. I prep stuff and then drop it out far enough ahead of the characters that it avoids issues of immediate illusionism.

The tendancy is you do lose pre-created content because the point of table exploratory play is to present and react directly off what the PCs do while maintaining pressure forcing them to react/act again. The general advice in most such games is to create minimally. "Maps with holes" is a line from Dungeonworld, for example. You tend not to put much time into pre-generated encounters because there is little to no indication that any such will end up used. A hard failure near the entrance can shift the adventure away from the dungeon completely. Putting together a 25-room dungeon with creatures and treasures works directly against that premise.

That's why table exploratory play can gut prep time. You aren't working with a solid environment. It is fluid until the PCs touch it.

What tools do you feel like you're lacking?

Geez, what tools does it even have?

It is missing a strong system for controlling DM lead-by-nose-itis.
It is missing a strong system to handling non-combat challenges.
It is missing a strong system to support scaling success and failure to help the DM gauge momentum.
It is missing a system for the players to inject content.
It is missing any advice on how to run and how to play in such an environment.

In general I think you and I differ a lot on how much bending and folding needs to be done. Also, keep in mind the two suggestions I tossed were off the top of my head. I'm happy to discuss in more detail how to make that happen in 5e, but don't assume because I didn't post in excruciating detail that I don't have something to say about that.

It isn't too hard to emulate a structured adventure path style of game. It is really hard to emulate a sandbox. It is also quite hard to run a dungeon on-the-fly with players that take advantage of all the various scouting options and specifically seek advantage. Not hard so much as the amount of time available for thought limits the on-the-spot creator from building connections and dropping appropriate clues as to what is around the next corner. Those clues are vital in a game strongly oriented to player exploratory play.