Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Fenris-77]

I recall back in the day, when I first started trying to integrate improvisation into my game (as opposed to earlier, when I could sometimes admittedly by a bit of a railroader). My group from then was remarking what a great game I had run, and I confessed to them that it had been all off the cuff. You could literally watch the expressions sour on their faces. The campaign basically crashed and burned after that. I had shown them what was behind the curtain, and it ruined the experience for them.

That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

This is a useful look at the unique duties of a party host, even in informal situations. I might quibble on some (duty to ensure fun), but that's beside the point.

However, you only looked at the unique duties of the host and declared them more. Where's the analysis of the attendee unique duties? They have to travel, the hist does not. They have to, in the potluck example, prepare food for travel. They have to ensure they've brought everything they need. I'm sure a few more things might pop up, say one attendee has a hard time getting a babysitter or has to seitch shifts at work to come, but thise aren't directly party related.

A full analysis can't stop when you've collected the evidence that supports your assumption.

If the analogy is "host = GM" then I'm not entirely sure one needs to delve into all the ways "guest = player" is or isn't a solid analogy. Sure, guests at parties have different duties/responsibilities than the host, and they're pretty clearly taking on more if the party is a potluck, but that's kinda inherent in the idea that you (as a GM running without much prep) are hosting a potluck, whereas I (a GM prepping adventures, and writing the world for the campaign, and writing up almost all the NPCs) am having people over for a dinner I am preparing, complete with beers picked to go with dinner (and possibly dessert). Neither of us is "hosting wrong," we're just doing things differently--I'm a pretty serious cook, and a pretty serious beer nerd, and I really enjoy the intersection between the two, and I think of cooking (and hosting) as inherently generous and something I'm willing/eager to be responsible for; you (not really you, but the "you" in the analogy) are more interested in the party as a shared responsibility and experience.

Edit. Got ninja'd a bit, not trying to pile on.

 

[Nagol]

@lowkey13

I follow the analogy, and as someone who's had people over for food and drinks a few times, I see the range you're talking about. Heck, I don't find hosting anything like as stressful in the moment as preparing for hosting (which isn't all that different from my experience of DMing, and reflects something about my personality). I don't think we're disagreeing. Are we disagreeing?

My spouse likes to throw parties a few times a year. I despise them. So we compromise and we throw parties slightly less than a few times a year.

If I felt about GMing as I do parties, there would be nothing that could be done to encourage me to GM that would leave the role recognizable. "Sure, I'll GM so long as no one else attends and no actions need to be taken in advance or afterwards!"

To an admittedly lesser degree this is where a whole bunch of the player population sits. They simply don't want the role -- whether that's the mantle of responsibility for fun and fairness, being the centre of attention, being called upon to handle disputes, not having an avatar they can call their own, or the perceived workload before during and after the session will vary from person to person and will almost certainly be a mix of all the above.

To entice more people to GM almost certainly means altering the social and group dynamic aspects of the role at least as much as altering the workload.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

To an admittedly lesser degree this is where a whole bunch of the player population sits. They simply don't want the role -- whether that's the mantle of responsibility for fun and fairness, being the centre of attention, being called upon to handle disputes, not having an avatar they can call their own, or the perceived workload before during and after the session will vary from person to person and will almost certainly be a mix of all the above.

You mentioned the avatar thing, and it reminded me of this, which my wife puts at the beginning of every session's worth of notes:

Players:
Adam - Orryk - Forest Gnome Monk (Way of the Four Elements, variant)/Wizard
Heath - Fiona - Half-Elf Wizard (Evoker)/Cleric (Knowledge)
John - Taman - Human (variant) Rogue (Inquisitive)/Ranger (Horizon Walker)
Sara - Joybell - Forest Gnome Paladin (Oath of the Ancients)
Reeve - Thneed - Wood Elf Ranger (Hunter Conclave)/Cleric (War)
Bill - Mo - Goliath Bard (College of Lore)

GM:
Patrick - Everyone Else

"Everyone Else." Put that way it seems like more than it feels.

 

[Nagol]

That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,

More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.

Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.

 

[Nagol]

You mentioned the avatar thing, and it reminded me of this, which my wife puts at the beginning of every session's worth of notes:

Players:
Adam - Orryk - Forest Gnome Monk (Way of the Four Elements, variant)/Wizard
Heath - Fiona - Half-Elf Wizard (Evoker)/Cleric (Knowledge)
John - Taman - Human (variant) Rogue (Inquisitive)/Ranger (Horizon Walker)
Sara - Joybell - Forest Gnome Paladin (Oath of the Ancients)
Reeve - Thneed - Wood Elf Ranger (Hunter Conclave)/Cleric (War)
Bill - Mo - Goliath Bard (College of Lore)

GM:
Patrick - Everyone Else

"Everyone Else." Put that way it seems like more than it feels.

DMPC exists as a concept for a reason. It is antipattern for a whole host of other reasons.

 

[prabe]

DMPC exists as a concept for a reason. It is antipattern for a whole host of other reasons.

Yeah. I'm not running a DMPC in this campaign because it's not needed (it's a big party). I've run one before, if the party was small and there was a role that seemed to need filling, but it's a bit of a minefield, and I'd prefer to only do so at need.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If the analogy is "host = GM" then I'm not entirely sure one needs to delve into all the ways "guest = player" is or isn't a solid analogy. Sure, guests at parties have different duties/responsibilities than the host, and they're pretty clearly taking on more if the party is a potluck, but that's kinda inherent in the idea that you (as a GM running without much prep) are hosting a potluck, whereas I (a GM prepping adventures, and writing the world for the campaign, and writing up almost all the NPCs) am having people over for a dinner I am preparing, complete with beers picked to go with dinner (and possibly dessert). Neither of us is "hosting wrong," we're just doing things differently--I'm a pretty serious cook, and a pretty serious beer nerd, and I really enjoy the intersection between the two, and I think of cooking (and hosting) as inherently generous and something I'm willing/eager to be responsible for; you (not really you, but the "you" in the analogy) are more interested in the party as a shared responsibility and experience.

Edit. Got ninja'd a bit, not trying to pile on.

Not at all trying to say that every party is the same or that some "preferred" division of responsiblity exists. Just banging my drum that absolute statements (either way) aren't true and that some specificity to situation needs to be made. Also that there's a tendency to stop looking at a scenario when we've found all the things that support our biases -- which I have, too. I try to examine mine, and it's very helpful to me that I actually play in multiple, different styles based on game/group, so I have opportunity. I also very much believe that the right way to play is the way that's fun for you.

But, all of the accusations of insidiousness or one-true-wayism show up on both sides, they're just often ignored by the majority when they align with the majority. No one in this thread arguing GMing diesn't have to be hard has made any statement that it's the "right" or "best" way to do things, but that accusation has been made. Meanwhile, it's been said a few times by numerous posters that ways other than GM-centered play sre "niche" and that niche position is "revealed preference." These aren't widely potested as one-true-wayism because it fits the biases of most in this thread and so is received with nods.

Sorry, you've actually been a great poster and aren't part of the problems I'm ranting about. Sometimes the frustration leaks out.