Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Manbearcat]

Arghh. No, you don't understand. Because that's not how disagreement works!

Watch the difference:

A. I think Italian food is the best cuisine. Because of X, Y, and Z.
B. I think Japanese food is the best cuisine. Because of A, B, and C.

(discussion)

A. I think Italian food is the best cuisine. Because of X, Y, and Z.
B. Well, you don't even know what you like.


One allows for conversation, discussion, and so on. The other (you don't even know what you like) is an immediate end to discussion, because ... where do you go from there?

It is truly baffling to me that there is anyone who remains confused by the idea that trying to tell people that they don't understand their own preferences is (a) a bad idea that (b) does not lead to a productive conversation.

I’m going to be done after clarifying this because this is clearly not a fun conversation for either of us (this is definitely not why I engage in TTRPG discussion).

Your arrangement above is not accurate.

It’s not about taste or preference or what people like. When people like things and they’re working, there is no need for further examination. But (a) when people are having a hard time with x and (b) they think they like x yet (c) can’t puzzle out why they’re having a hard time with x...the conversation is like this (going back to the originating x and y).

Conversation:

Person 1: I like Action Adventure TTRPGing...but something feels off here...

Person 2: Are you sure you broadly like Action Adventure TTRPGing? Maybe you like this other thing? Or maybe you like AA gaming when thing 1 and thing 2 aren’t present?

Because I definitely I like AA TTRPGing and what I like is definitely different from what you like. I like AA TTRPGing because of this thing and that thing. Do you like this thing and that thing?

Person 1: <Responds to the above questions or asks for clarification>.

My life is filled with endless interactions like this and I’m not remotely a social pariah. My engagements with people go swimmingly...there isn’t the kind of offense taken that you’re predicting...and we figure stuff out. And, crazy enough, pretty much everyone in all of my circles (friends, family, work, etc) know I have our collective best interests in mind and they come to me for council.

I am done talking about how to congenially talk about TTRPGing. If I have something to say about the topic at hand I’ll post more, but I’m not doing this line of conversation anymore. If I don’t respond to any reply, I’m not being a jerk. I just don’t want to continue this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, though, there is a difference between the banal observation that people change, people grow, people learn, and so on, and the somewhat more insidious and pejorative statement that people don't understand their own preferences.

Let's take this as given. It's still been you that's introduced the more insidious version of this despite the other poster refuting your characterization and explaining their approach. You still hold out that the insidious approach exists and we need to be vigilant, which is just a banal observation as you're talking about here, and also has an insidious side if it's being used to characterize other posters to dismiss their arguments. See how that works?

I get that you see this one way, and that's the negative way. This is clear from your example of how you crafted the discussion argument to cast 'might not know what you want' in the frame of an attack. It wasn't presented that way, and is actually something that I have personal, recent experience with having happened to me in regards to RPGs -- I didn't fully understand what I want from a game and didn't know why I was burning out so quickly when running (and playing, often). I changed how I looked at things, accepted something new, and learned something about myself and that my preferences are supportable by changing some approaches to play. So, @Manbearcat's statement absolutely applies to me, 100%, and not in an insidious or pejorative way but in a constructive, "yep, that's my story, there," way. I agree with you that 'people aren't always aware of what they want' can be a sideways attack, but it wasn't here, it was used in good faith to point out that there's a strong mono-culture in gaming and some people might not even be aware that they'd like partaking in a different gaming culture because they aren't aware of it's existence. I've been part of a number of discussions on this very board where an approach to play presented clearly in the DMG is met with surprise that such play even exists in 5e opposite to the expectations of those posters. I could call on @iserith and @Charlaquin to support those claims. This isn't a statement that all gamers, or even most gamers, would choose to change if exposed, it's a statement that at least some might. And, being exposed and solidifying your understanding of your own preferences is a solid good in all respects.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There were hints of BADWRONGFUN in the advice/admonishments, for one.

I didn't think so, but I largely don't really register that stuff all too much. If someone thinks that my way is bad, that's their prerogative.

Any advice I offered, or questions I asked, were in genuine hope to be able to move the conversation forward either by understanding someone else's POV or playstule better, or to offer an idea of my own that maybe some would find useful. At least until these last couple of pages, at least. Now I'm talking about how we should talk.

More involved and extra coordination == harder. It is only not-hard for the segment of population that find coordination and the extra involvement above and beyond playing no big deal. For some people playing is hard. For some that play, extra work is hard.

Yes, many people have said this. That's fine. My opinion is that DMing is not significantly harder than playing. Are you admonishing me? Are you telling me my opinion is wrong?

I don't think you are.....this is simply the nature of discussion.

And different things for different player groups. The better you know your group, the more consistent prep becomes.

To a point. There are always diminishing returns and hard limits. If you can make tasks for a role disappear then the role never really existed as more than arbitrage.

Yes, I agree withthese points. As I've said repeatedly, different things will work for different people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?

EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing. Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.

I don't think GMing has to be harder than playing, depending on the game. I think 5e requires more effort from a GM because of the GM centered nature of the game (it would require serious hacking to change this), but 4e doesn't require more. I think GMing is different from playing, in every game. The responsibilities differ. It can be hard to say which is harder if you cannot directly compare them. I think, though, in that it's clearly true that if you, as GM, take on the role as sole authority over the fiction and resolution thereof, and hold out as a goal a well-crafted fiction, that your job will be much harder than a player who's only task is to experience that fiction through their character. I think that's a choice, though, so it being harder is a choice to make it so. NOT a bad choice -- I do more work than my players when I run 5e, even as I've taken steps to lighten the work I put in by sharing some of the fictional authorities. So, clearly, I'm not of the opinion that choosing to do more work is a bad outcome. I'm genuinely happy that people have fun playing differently from me because that means I have more to learn and experience and sample, aside from the more meta-level abstract happiness that people are having fun at a shared hobby. I think a lot of these conversations get sidetracked because someone takes a statement the wrong way and it's into a nasty back and forth before either side recognizes the mistake -- and, let's be honest, we as humans aren't very good at backing down. I'm clearly guilty of this, myself, in this thread, so I'm not assuming any moral high ground, here.

Games are a choice. There's lots of ways to approach an RPG as far as role responsibilities. Which one you choose should be to maximize your fun. Clearly, this has to be balanced against the social contract of your that group, so you can't always maximize your own fun, but there's a place where you can maximize your fun within that construct and not break it for others. If that's doing a lot of prep, awesome, more power to you. It is, however, a choice you and your table have made, not a requirement. That's the extent of my point -- that and to try to raise awareness that it is a choice among others, and if you haven't considered (or tried) the others, you might find that you can learn a new tool to help maximize your fun at the table.

 

[Nagol]

I didn't think so, but I largely don't really register that stuff all too much. If someone thinks that my way is bad, that's their prerogative.

Any advice I offered, or questions I asked, were in genuine hope to be able to move the conversation forward either by understanding someone else's POV or playstule better, or to offer an idea of my own that maybe some would find useful. At least until these last couple of pages, at least. Now I'm talking about how we should talk.



Yes, many people have said this. That's fine. My opinion is that DMing is not significantly harder than playing. Are you admonishing me? Are you telling me my opinion is wrong?

Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans. Then you are wrong. If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.

I don't think multithreaded programming is hard. Most programmers disagree and rightfully so. I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion. Most people don't find attending a party difficult. For me it is excruciating. I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.

Many people think differential calculus is hard. I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it. It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard. Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.

I don't think you are.....this is simply the nature of discussion.



Yes, I agree withthese points. As I've said repeatedly, different things will work for different people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans. Then you are wrong. If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.

I don't think multithreaded programming is hard. Most programmers disagree and rightfully so. I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion. Most people don't find attending a party difficult. For me it is excruciating. I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.

Many people think differential calculus is hard. I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it. It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard. Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.

I find the traditional D&D approach to GMing to be hard, zero questions. I don't think that makes GMing hard, though, it just makes that approach hard.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven’t been following this thread, but I would say the DM is certainly not the most important person at the table. Every person is valuable, no one player’s experience should be given more importance than anyone else’s. However, the DM does have the most important role at the table. It is the only role that is essential to the function of the game - if you lose a player, as long as there is still at least one player remaining, the game can go on without having to find someone else to fill that role. If you lose the DM, you need someone to fill that role or the game can’t go on (there are GM-less systems of course, but D&D is not one of them).

 

[Hussar]

@Sadras says:
Many of the posters who ONLY advocate for the so-called player-driven games (@Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer have their feet planted firmly in both camps so not them) do not seem to understand this desire by players.

I feel they're always entering threads with their singular axiom 'GM Force = negative = bad DM' but are not willing to accept that many players out there are actually reluctant/resistant to


I'm not sure it's super helpful to continually reiterate that people are holding it wrong. If some players do not, cannot, or will not play the way you want them to, then continually stating the solution for the DM is to make it a player-driven game is not tremendously helpful.

It also seems to ignore the disparity in the market.

That's not quite what's happening though.

The question, in my mind anyway, is how can we reduce the workload on DM's in order to entice more people to DM. One possible solution is to involve players more and dump some of the workload off on them. The reaction is generally that doing so will impinge on DM authority and we cannot possibly do that.

Are there players who are reluctant/resistant? I'm sure there are. But, we'll generally never know how much reluctance/resistance there is, because any suggestion that we change the current paradigm is immediately dismissed out of hand.

I'm not offering a panacea solution here. I'm offering ONE solution. No one else seems to be willing to do even that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*