Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Sadras]

You know, I can see a situation in my current campaign where this could work out quite well; I could have them do this for the city where they seem to have ended up basing themselves.

The only thing is, I'd have to specify the NPCs be "minor" - merchants, innkeepers, commoners, minor guild functionaries, etc. and nobody of any significant class level - as most of the major ones are already done and quite a few have already entered play as NPCs. I'd also have to specify or at least strongly encourage Human-only as it's a mostly-Human place.

(of my four players, I'm ironclad sure two would be all over this but the other two might not touch it with a barge pole)

I would probably also add some constraints on these 5 PCs for setting purposes (race and such like), but also to deter the metagame PCs having an armourer, an alchemist guy, a sage guy, a bowyer/fletcher, a gem guy...etc. I do not mind a contact or two, but it isn't necessary to turn every roleplaying opportunity into muchkinism. I'd prefer variety - a possible love interest, a happy drunk, a mischievous street urchin, a newly married couple, an idealistic acolyte, a recent widow, out-of-luck merchant, a pushy flower vendor, a musical duo, a retired falconer, a generous aristocrat, a lascivious innkeeper, a miserable midwife, bookworm-y town guard, an alcoholic sage, a roguish tradesman, a droll linguist, a burly dressmaker...etc

Like @Sadras , I'd likely also have trouble working them in to play on any regular basis; not because I'm running an AP but because they're pretty much only ever in town during downtime. But even if I didn't work them in, posting write-ups on each in the online town gazetteer would add to the 'depth'.

I might have been unclear, maybe - I said I won't have trouble working them in.

 

[Nagol]

I think it's a mistake to paint this in terms of "better" or "worse". That's a pretty nebulous rabbit hole. OTOH, I do think that it's rather telling that there is virtually no advice given to DM's on how to reduce their workload in D&D. The majority of gamers only know D&D. And, in D&D, it's always presented, since pretty much day 1, that the DM will do the majority of the work on the campaign, and the players will only be responsible for their own characters.

I think that if we started seeing advice in D&D books on how to spread the workload out, you actually wouldn't get as much push back as it seems. If you build it, they will come.

You know a dirty little secret that no one wants to acknowledge?
It's not the prep workload that's the problem. WotC, Paizo et al. have that covered with their APs. No need to create NPCs, or map, or work out consistent plots and narratives. Buy this one book and you are covered for months of DMing.

People still won't DM.

It is the in-session pressure and responsibility that keeps people out of the DM's chair. It is the fear of scrutiny, being the centre of attention, feeling that you have become responsible for the others' enjoyment. It is where public speaking meets babysitting and gets run over by hosting a party. All you wanted to do is have fun with some friends and now you have to do this work. Let Mikey do it. He's done it before. Playing is fun. Someone else can DM and deal with the headache.

The only people how whinge about the extra prep are those who enjoy creating and running their own stuff and spend the time because they like spending the time. It'd just be nice if it sometimes took less time. These are the self-selected group of people who already passed the primary barrier.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, there's the clear benefit of player engagement. They are creating material for THEIR characters. Hopefully they will be interested and be able to create material that is tailored to the group.

Hopefully? So what if they aren't interested (or are simply too busy), and they just mail it in? Or they try their best but the result is rather flavorless? Doesn't that just create more work for the DM?

I can see the advantage of having NPCs that are established by the players. As I've said, I encourage my players to do that very thing in their backgrounds. If a player came to me mid campaign and wanted to introduce an old friend or something, I'd be delighted!

That said, something like the illusionist from upthread is a step too far, IMO. You're diminishing elements of exploration and surprise, in the hope that the player generated NPC will result in better engagement. That's a big trade off.

I've no doubt that with the right group it could work (one that appreciates things like player ownership over exploration and surprise, for example). But it certainly won't work for every group, including mine. My group favors discovery in RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

It changes GM prep requirements, no question there, but the effort level is similar*. Instead of working on designing the adventure etc. from scratch, the effort now goes in to tying the PCs' backstories together into something coherent that still fits with the setting.

I can't comment on effort, which seems like it could vary with the individual as you say. But as far as prep is concerned I'm pretty confident that it reduces it.

You don't need to prepare an "adventure" ie a series of situations, adversaries, etc - because that has already been done as part of PC-building.

I think tying the PCs' backstories together is not the right description. In neither of the illustrations from actual play that I posted was their very much backstory. For the Cthulhu Dark game there was no backstory beyond occupation (some backstory - eg homes, relationships - emerged during play after the initial set-up). What there was was a current episode in which the PC was involved.

In the case of the "kickers" for our Dark Sun game there also was not much backstory - none for the gladiator who missed out on adulation, a little bit for the other two PCs. What there was, in each case, was a situation that would prompt some sort of evocative or meaningful response from the PC.

As a GM, in neither case did I have to "tie backstories together". What I had to do was weave together the three situations.

To some extent that is a matter of skill and practice. But there are also tools that can be used. For instance, Dark Sun is very heavy with prominent tropes - Sorcerer-Kings, templars, psionics, gladiators, etc. And 4e combat resolution makes a big deal of space and positioning. I drew on these things to weave the situations together: conflict in the stands (templars investigating the sudden death of the Eladrin PC's contact) merged with conflict in the arena (involving the two gladiators vs angry members of the crowd).

To build on @Hussar's remark about GMing advice: it is possible to give advice which can help with these sorts of techniques, therefore making them easier to implement for those who might want to.

 

[pemerton]

You know a dirty little secret that no one wants to acknowledge?
It's not the prep workload that's the problem. WotC, Paizo et al. have that covered with their APs. No need to create NPCs, or map, or work out consistent plots and narratives. Buy this one book and you are covered for months of DMing.

People still won't DM.

It is the in-session pressure and responsibility that keeps people out of the DM's chair. It is the fear of scrutiny, being the centre of attention, feeling that you have become responsible for the others' enjoyment. It is where public speaking meets babysitting and gets run over by hosting a party.

I think this is right.

So let's make it easier to discharge the responsibility!

I think @Hussar is right to try and reduce the sense that the GM is responsible for others' enjoyment. That's where the emphasis on players bringing their best to the table makes sense.

But there's also scope for plainer and clearer GM advice, I think. Some indie games - I'm thinking Burning Wheel revised/Gold and Apocalpyse World - are streets ahead of any D&D advice I've seen in this respect. They're not straightforwardly transplantable to the D&D context - they're too opinionated for a mass-market game., and of course are oriented towards their own systems which differ from D&D in various ways.

But they show that it can be done.

I'm one of those who think that Moldvay is the peak of GMing advice for D&D, but there's so much more that can be done in giving advice about how to adjudicate, narrate consequences etc.

(For completeness: I think you and I aren't too far apart on this particular issue.)

 

[Fenris-77]

@Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.

@pemerton - I agree completely about Burning Wheel and the general difficulty of porting over elements form indie games to D&D. I do think it's possible, and useful, but it's work. The hack of BitD flashbacks for 5e is a great example of how it can be done well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

@Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.

The discovery I'm referring to is not that variety. Rather, it's where the DM knows what's going on behind the scenes but the players don't, and they have to suss it out (or not).

I'm just going off of the earlier example in the thread, which was an illusionist who had framed a prince. If you have the player design that illusionist, all sense of discovery (with respect to how I have explained I am using the term) is lost.

If the NPC is just a minor bit NPC, I don't think it really matters. Sure, the player might be a little more engaged seeing someone they imagined. On the other hand, it'd probably be less work for me to do it myself. I can just improvise an unimportant NPC on the spot (though I recognize that might not be the case for all GMs). The only real work there is jotting down sufficient notes so that if the NPC reoccurs, they are consistent.

 

[Maxperson]

In terms of both time and effort, considerably less than 99%.

I have 4 players in my game plus me; we play for more or less 4 hours each week, that's 20 total hours. I might spend maybe on average* 4 hours a week between sessions working on game-related stuff (the only thing I guaranteed do every week is the game log, which often doesn't take long). So, we're on 24 total hours of which I spend roughly 8 - that's 33%.

* - widely variable; often less than 1 but occasionally a lot which brings the average up.

I'll grant the ratio of actual effort expended is higher, maybe more like 50%. Still a far cry from 99.

It's probably closer to 80%. Time is only one component of the workload. The typical player doesn't do squat for the game outside of the session. Sometimes the players will talk a little and plan something. Sometimes they will work on their characters, if they level fairly often. The DM on the other hand is planning out quite a bit of the game. During game play a player will have his PC interacting with the environment and NPCs, but it's the DM who is adjudicating every single one of those actions, times 4, and describing the environment for the players to interact with. The workload is significantly higher than you are estimating, but still significantly less than 99%.

Edit: Put in the bold section. It's not bolded for any other reason than it's the edit.

 

[prabe]

It's probably closer to 80%. Time is only one component of the workload. The typical player doesn't do squat for the game outside of the session. Sometimes the players will talk a little and plan something. Sometimes they will work on their characters, if they level fairly often. The DM on the other hand is planning out quite a bit of the game. During game play a player will have his PC interacting with the environment and NPCs, but it's the DM who is adjudicating every single one of those actions, times 4. The workload is significantly higher than you are estimating, but still significantly less than 99%.

Agreed, in part. I know I'm fortunate, but I do have players who contribute outside of just playing their characters. I don't feel as though I do 99% of the work at either table I'm running, but I do feel as though I'm doing more than one seventh of the work (both tables have had six players; one will be down to five starting next session). I think if I were to try to quantify it, I'd say it feels as though I do about half the work, maybe a little more, and that might not vary much with party size. While I spend a few hours prepping a session, the sessions themselves don't usually feel all that much like work to me. At least, outside of combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed, in part. I know I'm fortunate, but I do have players who contribute outside of just playing their characters. I don't feel as though I do 99% of the work at either table I'm running, but I do feel as though I'm doing more than one seventh of the work (both tables have had six players; one will be down to five starting next session). I think if I were to try to quantify it, I'd say it feels as though I do about half the work, maybe a little more, and that might not vary much with party size. While I spend a few hours prepping a session, the sessions themselves don't usually feel all that much like work to me. At least, outside of combat.

Yeah. The numbers will vary from table to table. One of my players plans out his PCs from 1-20, often 2 or 3 times as he thinks and rethinks them. He also goes over everything that happens or has happened from the beginning of the campaign on. I personally think he spends too much time over analyzing, but it's part of his fun so I don't say anything. It often results in fun things coming out of left field, too. One campaign, there was some bit of obscure knowledge that they needed to find out about when the PCs were about 17th level. The players were discussing things and this player says, "Remember that librarian we ran into in X town? Maybe he will know." This library was in a small town on the other side of the continent and I had completely forgotten about him. Suddenly they were seriously contemplating going to see a small town librarian for the info. It was great.