Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Nagol]

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

Well then, you obviously shouldn't be in the hobby! /s

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

What did you spend your four hours doing? What kind of adventure did you craft? I don't think we can give specifics without understanding that.

More generally, I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly. I wouldn't ever expect there to be a 1:1 ratio for the amount of prep between GM: Player, but it can definitely ease the burden.

If the players are helping to craft and populate the world, then the Gm doesn't have to do all of that. The players will have provided NPCs, Factions, Locations, and other elements that the GM can use to shape their adventures. The best part is that the players have literally said "This interests me" when they're adding these elements to the fiction. Depending on the nature of your game, you can go as big or as small as you need to with this....it can be an entire world that gets mapped out ahead of time, or a small town and it's nearby surroundings. Whatever works for the group.

If the players do this, then very likely their characters will also be as carefully crafted, and will be far more likely to feel as if they exist in this world that you've made. They will have existing connections....family, friends, co-workers, rivals....and existing goals and desires. These give the GM even more material to draw from in order to craft the adventures.

The players may even initiate the kind of adventure they'd like to go on. They may finish up one adventure, and then say "Hey, we got a lead on the fighter's missing brother.....let's look into that" and then the GM has an idea for what to do next, and the players feel more proactive about the game. They feel like they are actually driving the fiction because they're helping to determine what happens next instead of waiting for the next thing to come along.

None of this eliminates the need for the GM to have input. But it can certainly ease the burden greatly. It can also help focus play, and place clear goals and points of interest into the setting well ahead of time.

Again, this is general. If you can clarify how you spent your four hours, I might have some more specific advise for you.

 

[prabe]

Again, this is general. If you can clarify how you spent your four hours, I might have some more specific advise for you.

I can't say exactly how @GameOgre spent their prep time, but I can tell what I do during mine. It's not usually four hours, but it's usually more than two. I've never broken down how long anything takes, but things include:

Working out the likely results of what the characters seem likely to do, given where they are in whatever story thread they're running down. If there are facts that need to emerge, now is when I like to figure out what those facts are. If there are people they're likely to meet, now is when I like to figure those out, too. This is also when I figure out things that are likely to happen around the characters. In my every-other-Saturday campaign, this meant working out who the various members of the cabal of diabolists were in the city, and why they were working in the service of that archdevil; it meant working out what the characters were likely to find based on likely paths/choices; it meant working out what the cabal was likely to to do if they found out the party were looking for them (and if they didn't); it meant writing up index cards for the various devils they were likely to summon (since I'm not DMing at home, I prefer not to tote my Monster Manual around, to save at least a little weight). If there's going to be a treasure hoard, this is when I prefer to generate that (because I have extra homebrew and third-party stuff, I prefer to generate it at home).

There's usually some amount of ... germination, or something, where before I sit down to write stuff up (or down), I think about things for a while. That tends to start right after the session.

In the session, there was some figuring out what a given person they met knew, and roleplaying out the various interactions, and some fighting, and stuff. There was some ad-libbing, because the players always find some path I didn't think of (which means I don't usually prep in deep detail; the total is usually something like two to four notebook pages).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've skipped some posts, so I have to ask why any of that matters. This thread is a discussion about which person/role in the group is most important or which role in the group is the most difficult. The premise of this thread presumes the DM and players and their respective roles are already present and have been chosen.

The thread is actually about a few things. Going back to the OP, it seems to be more about "whose enjoyment or desires for play is paramount"....it points out how the GM typically is host and game runner, and so should that additional effort place more importance on his enjoyment.

Then, the conversation turned more toward the importance of the role of GM to the game and/or to the group. The scarcity of GMs and how central to the game their function is, and the importance of that compared to the more plentiful players, and also the difficulty level compared between the two roles.

Then, the conversation also became about how difficult the role of GM actually is, and what can be done to make it easier, and also what players can do to help. A slight tangent on this was also which role is typically determined first for a new game....is it the GM who determines what's next, or some other method?

I think the word you've chosen to bold really addresses just about all of these things. The game is a group activity. Everyone's enjoyment is important. Everyone can contribute to the game. Everyone decides who will run what game next. Sure, there may be instances where this is not the case, but generally speaking, that's how it should be handled.

I don't think anyone really wants to deny that the function that the GM serves in a game is not central and vital. I think it's the act of placing it above the group that is provoking resistance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can't say exactly how @GameOgre spent their prep time, but I can tell what I do during mine. It's not usually four hours, but it's usually more than two. I've never broken down how long anything takes, but things include:

Working out the likely results of what the characters seem likely to do, given where they are in whatever story thread they're running down. If there are facts that need to emerge, now is when I like to figure out what htose facts are. If there are people they're likely to meet, now is when I like to figure those out, too. This is also when I figure out things that are likely to happen around the characters. In my every-other-Saturday campaign, this meant working out who the various members of the cabal of diabolists were in the city, and why they were working in the service of that archdevil; it meant working out what the characters were likely to find based on likely paths/choices; it meant working out what the cabal was likely to to do if they found out the party were looking for them (and if they didn't); it meant writing up index cards for the various devils they were likely to summon (since I'm not DMing at home, I prefer not to tote my Monster Manual around, to save at least a little weight). If there's going to be a treasure hoard, this is when I prefer to generate that (because I have extra homebrew and third-party stuff, I prefer to generate it at home).

There's usually some amount of ... germination, or something, where before I sit down to write stuff up (or down), I think about things for a while. That tends to start right after the session.

In the session, there was some figuring out what a given person they met knew, and roleplaying out the various interactions, and some fighting, and stuff. There was some ad-libbing, because the players always find some path I didn't think of (which means I don't usually prep in deep detail; the total is usually something like two to four notebook pages).

This sounds similar to my approach, overall, although it seems you go into more depth. I try to keep things short and bulleted so it's all on one page and easy to reference. I've found that printing up stat blocks from D&D Beyond can be a bit easier than handwriting out stats for monsters, or for having to flip through the Monster Manual over and over from one monster to the next. I generally cut and paste stat blocks and shrink them a bit so I can fit as many on one page as possible, and then I place these on a clipboard under my one page of notes. I use two clipboards in play, so one will have my notes and some monster stats, and the other will have additional monster stats and maybe a map on the rare occasion I need one before play. Two clipboards cuts down on the page flipping during play.

If a session is going to call for a lot of potential interaction, then I'll also make a list of names with maybe one or two details and space to write a bit more. So something like "Jarek, Aasimar, handsome and radiant-" and then decide who he may be as needed. Obviously, this is more for casual encounters such as innkeepers or guards or what have you, rather than NPCs who have a specific place in the fiction.

Most of my prep is that germination period you reference.....where I'm just ruminating about the game and where it may go next. I don't really know how much time is spent on this in a given week. But it's not something I think of as work, or hard, it's part of my enjoyment of being a GM. I think this is my most productive prep, honestly, and the rest is just getting some of these ideas down on a page and organized a bit so I can reference them in play.

Would you describe any of what you did as "hard"? It sounds a bit time consuming, perhaps, but not difficult in and of itself. And do you feel the need to make things easier?

 

[macd21]

What did you spend your four hours doing? What kind of adventure did you craft? I don't think we can give specifics without understanding that.

More generally, I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly. I wouldn't ever expect there to be a 1:1 ratio for the amount of prep between GM: Player, but it can definitely ease the burden.

If the players are helping to craft and populate the world, then the Gm doesn't have to do all of that. The players will have provided NPCs, Factions, Locations, and other elements that the GM can use to shape their adventures. The best part is that the players have literally said "This interests me" when they're adding these elements to the fiction. Depending on the nature of your game, you can go as big or as small as you need to with this....it can be an entire world that gets mapped out ahead of time, or a small town and it's nearby surroundings. Whatever works for the group.

If the players do this, then very likely their characters will also be as carefully crafted, and will be far more likely to feel as if they exist in this world that you've made. They will have existing connections....family, friends, co-workers, rivals....and existing goals and desires. These give the GM even more material to draw from in order to craft the adventures.

The players may even initiate the kind of adventure they'd like to go on. They may finish up one adventure, and then say "Hey, we got a lead on the fighter's missing brother.....let's look into that" and then the GM has an idea for what to do next, and the players feel more proactive about the game. They feel like they are actually driving the fiction because they're helping to determine what happens next instead of waiting for the next thing to come along.

None of this eliminates the need for the GM to have input. But it can certainly ease the burden greatly. It can also help focus play, and place clear goals and points of interest into the setting well ahead of time.

Again, this is general. If you can clarify how you spent your four hours, I might have some more specific advise for you.

All of that is interesting, but none of it actually helps make my job as a GM easier. Entirely the opposite, in fact, it complicates it. It might be fun (if the players come up with good material), but it would be additional material I would have to integrate into my campaign. That’s not lightening my burden, it’s increasing it.

 

[prabe]

Would you describe any of what you did as "hard"? It sounds a bit time consuming, perhaps, but not difficult in and of itself. And do you feel the need to make things easier?

I wouldn't call it "hard," really, no. I don't have a subscription to D&D Beyond, because ... well, because I don't need one. I don't mind putting a monster's stats onto a 5" x 8" index card (or, for something more complicated, a sheet of cardstock); at this point, I have something like a system for where things are, and I'd probably run less comfortably from a published stat block. What I have the most difficulty with, really, is motivating myself to write it, but I know I feel more comfortable (and as though I run better) with it written.

It doesn't feel from inside as though I go into all that much depth (though it might look like it from outside). The session with the cabal just had a lot of things I wanted to have written down. And I still ended up improvising a few characters (a bartender and a bouncer at a brothel, a cleric at a temple of [knowledge]), but those seemed less likely to matter to the story.

 

[hawkeyefan]

All of that is interesting, but none of it actually helps make my job as a GM easier. Entirely the opposite, in fact, it complicates it. It might be fun (if the players come up with good material), but it would be additional material I would have to integrate into my campaign. That’s not lightening my burden, it’s increasing it.

Obviously, different things work for different people. I've found it to be quite the opposite, though.

For me, it helps give me focus points for play. The Cleric is looking for a lost relic of his faith, the fighter's brother is missing, etc. These give me hooks that I don't need to come up with on my own. If the players have also contributed in the world building, then I likely already have details about the cleric's church, and some villainous factions that may come into play. That's less that I have to craft myself.

Perhaps it's a question of approach. I don't necessarily have things already decided that I have to incorporate these player ideas into, but rather what I try to do is add my ideas to theirs. Perhaps that's a meaningful distinction? Hard to say with minimal understanding of each other's actual game.

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you're talking about a campaign that's already ongoing, is that right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wouldn't call it "hard," really, no. I don't have a subscription to D&D Beyond, because ... well, because I don't need one. I don't mind putting a monster's stats onto a 5" x 8" index card (or, for something more complicated, a sheet of cardstock); at this point, I have something like a system for where things are, and I'd probably run less comfortably from a published stat block. What I have the most difficulty with, really, is motivating myself to write it, but I know I feel more comfortable (and as though I run better) with it written.

It doesn't feel from inside as though I go into all that much depth (though it might look like it from outside). The session with the cabal just had a lot of things I wanted to have written down. And I still ended up improvising a few characters (a bartender and a bouncer at a brothel, a cleric at a temple of [knowledge]), but those seemed less likely to matter to the story.

When I said more in depth, I just meant that you had 4 pages of notes, and I try to keep it to 1 page. The level of detail sounds about the same, though....I think I just commit less to the page, maybe?

I think that my prep will certainly vary depending on what I expect will come up in play. If there's going to be a session that's more social interaction than combat, then my prep will be more lists of names and factions, and so on. We just resumed our 5E campaign after a long break where we played a few other games, so one of the earliest sessions was about reestablishing the city of Sigil as a home base. There was no combat, it was all about reminding the players of the relevant NPCs and organizations in Sigil, and having them interact with them with some skill challenges.

I hold on to my prep very loosely though, because at any point in time, the PCs could veer off to pursue some seemingly minor goal, or they could decide screw this NPC and attack, or any number of other curveballs. I think somone just upthread posted a bit about how Dungeonworld suggests to "create maps, but leave blank areas" and I think that's great advice overall for GMing. A little trickier with D&D compared to the traditional way of running it, but still a good bit of advice to keep in mind.

 

[prabe]

When I said more in depth, I just meant that you had 4 pages of notes, and I try to keep it to 1 page. The level of detail sounds about the same, though....I think I just commit less to the page, maybe?

I just checked, and it was more like three, including the cabal's treasure hoard. These are notebook pages, and there's plenty of white space so I can find stuff, so maybe it's not as much as you think? Agree that it's more than, say, one list of bullet points.

I think that my prep will certainly vary depending on what I expect will come up in play. If there's going to be a session that's more social interaction than combat, then my prep will be more lists of names and factions, and so on. We just resumed our 5E campaign after a long break where we played a few other games, so one of the earliest sessions was about reestablishing the city of Sigil as a home base. There was no combat, it was all about reminding the players of the relevant NPCs and organizations in Sigil, and having them interact with them with some skill challenges.

Oh, I don't always prep this much. As I said, this had more in the way of names and motivations I wanted to have set (well, I wanted to have thought about them before the session, and I wrote them down so I'd remember them in the session). I've done prep where it wasn't clear where the party was going to go next (because they'd just finished a story thread, IIRC), so it was just a couple scanty paragraphs covering the most-likely threads for them to do next, and I improvised until I wasn't over my skis anymore then called an end to the session.

I hold on to my prep very loosely though, because at any point in time, the PCs could veer off to pursue some seemingly minor goal, or they could decide screw this NPC and attack, or any number of other curveballs. I think somone just upthread posted a bit about how Dungeonworld suggests to "create maps, but leave blank areas" and I think that's great advice overall for GMing. A little trickier with D&D compared to the traditional way of running it, but still a good bit of advice to keep in mind.

Yeah. Blank areas are where the adventures (probably) are. I've had the party surprise me before in some kinda funny ways. It helps to be willing and able to write something off and/or improvise something.