Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Lanefan]

...

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.

...

Unrelated to anything else, the bolded bit is the best line I've seen all day!

 

[Lanefan]

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,

How is it the players' fault for reasonably assuming the setting they're operating in is a little more solidly constructed than a house of cards?

That said, pretty much everyone knows a DM has to wing it now and then and so the ask is merely that the DM be consistent in said wingings - if the invented-on-the-fly castle has three floors today it'll have three floors when we come back tomorrow - and thus maintain the setting's integrity even while making stuff up on the fly.

Where I would blame the players here is in how they reacted to learning it was all made up on the fly, after congratulating the DM on how well that session went.

 

[Lanefan]

Using prepared material is certainly one of the ways to save prep time. However, you generally still have to read through the material, and those big books can take a lot of time to read. I ran Tomb of Annihilation about a year ago as part of my 5E campaign, and I found it difficult for a number of reasons. I've since decided to only run my own material, and I am finding it far more easy.

But, I've also been DMing for a long time. I think for those starting out, using prepared material is a good idea. Although even that won't apply to all (I think @prabe mentioned that he can't make sense of the APs). I think that smaller bite size chunks are far more helpful to newer DMs. A few pages and a map, and not a whole lot more. I think the Adventurer's League stuff may be more in line with what's useful to a new DM, and certainly smaller adventures that can be found on the DMs Guild.

Largely agreed - says he, whose first six DMed adventures back in the day were all homebrew. (certainly a trial-by-fire on how not to design adventures!)

But when it comes to getting PCs' backstories to "fit the setting", I think it's useful to kind of look at it another way. What if the setting fit the PCs' backstories? Sure, you may have a general setting idea such as "we're going to play Dark Sun at the time of the fall of Kalak" as @pemerton used as an example. But what if that's step 1, step 2 is the players make their characters and related concepts (whether backstory, related NPCs, kickers, or some mix of all), and then step 3 is that the DM fleshes out the other details?

If I did it this way I'd need to know who my players were going to be, and they'd need to know their PCs, weeks or even months before campaign start.

And given as my games tend to be rather lethal at low levels...

Two things on this. I think that using a pre-established setting can indeed cut out a lot of work on the part of the GM. It may also serve as a hook for the players because they may already have an understanding of the setting and possibly strong interest in it, too. This is a big part of why my 5E campaign takes place in the D&D multiverse. It allows us to use any and all published bits, and a lot of the big players are known NPCs that the players already have an interest in.....Eclavdra and Iggwilv and Snurre and Mephistopheles and Graz'zt and Shemeska and so on. All of this gives me a plethora of material that I can mine for ideas, and the same for my players.

If the new GM is also running new players, you're absolutely right.

But if the players are experienced you risk hitting a canon lawyer, which no GM needs be they new or otherwise.

Having said that, I think that telling a new GM that they need to construct an entire world with all these details predetermined is one of the things that perpetuates the idea that it's so difficult to GM. There's no reason that this stuff can't be built as it's needed. Start with a town or city and the surrounding region. Add members of the pantheon as needed. And so on.

Again agreed; but only to a point.

The pantheons at least need to be fully designed before roll-up so players know what their options are should one or more want to roll up a Cleric. Much of the rest can, as you say, be done as required; though I'd advise even a new GM to try and stay a step or two ahead of things if possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Largely agreed - says he, whose first six DMed adventures back in the day were all homebrew. (certainly a trial-by-fire on how not to design adventures!)

Well there's something to be said about necessity. Some kids learn to swim by falling in the pool.

If I did it this way I'd need to know who my players were going to be, and they'd need to know their PCs, weeks or even months before campaign start.

Do you not typically know who's gonna play? I know that's common with public play and with online games, but I always got the impression from your posts that you have a dedicated group. Is that not the case?

As for weeks or months....I don't think I'd agree you need that much time. You might prefer it, sure, but I can't see how it's needed.

And given as my games tend to be rather lethal at low levels...

That can be an obstacle, I suppose. I always found that killing a first or second level character didn't pack that much of a punch since the player isn't as invested in them as they are after a couple more levels, at least.

However, we had a campaign we played where this was not an issue because we collectively created a roster of NPCs and possible PCs to populate the setting. We had 4 players, and once they selected their PCs, the others became additional NPCs and/or cohorts that helped the party a bit as needed. If a character died, there were still several replacements already at hand, and they had an actual place in the ongoing story already. It worked out really well.

If the new GM is also running new players, you're absolutely right.

But if the players are experienced you risk hitting a canon lawyer, which no GM needs be they new or otherwise.

That's more a case of annoying behavior than anything else, and can hopefully be curbed right at the start with something like "this is not THE Marvel Universe, this is OUR Marvel Universe" and then just periodically reminding everyone of that as you play.

Again agreed; but only to a point.

The pantheons at least need to be fully designed before roll-up so players know what their options are should one or more want to roll up a Cleric. Much of the rest can, as you say, be done as required; though I'd advise even a new GM to try and stay a step or two ahead of things if possible.

Again, I don't see this as a need so much as a preference.

Yes, having a pantheon gives players some options up front. But, not having it done up front may allow the player to add to the world by crafting their own deity for their cleric PC. This goes to both the point about allowing the players to craft world elements to make the more invested in play, and also on reducing some of the workload of the GM.

Yeah, a lot of these things have traditionally all been decided ahead of play. That's how most of us learned.....we looked at a list in the book, and we picked something that sounded cool, or that fit our character.

But that's not how it must be done.

 

[Hussar]

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?

No different than if the DM is just mailing it in. It happens.

 

[Li Shenron]

Another thread has me thinking about this. On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work. He plans things and runs the game. On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family. Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.

I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table. I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun. This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making. Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot. Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.

Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.

No DM, no game.

I know that many will say that also no players no game, but it's always a lot easier to find someone who wants to try playing rather someone who wants to try DMing, and everyone understands why. So yes, it is the most important person. It is also the person who will take a lot more responsibilities and dedicate a lot more time to make everyone enjoy the game, not just herself, so I see no reason why people should actually try find a way to prove she's less important.

 

[Sadras]

I think you're far better off asking them to create mostly the latter types that you mention....characters that they care about in some way, more so than the former, characters who can give them stuff. Nothing wrong with a blacksmith being an acquaintance of the fighter, but their relationship should likely mean more than just "that's the guy I sell weapons to, and who repairs my armor."

You have a few of these types of characters, and then leverage them in an organic way rather than just as weak spots to threaten the PC, and it can be a strong thing in play.

Thanks. After giving this some thought, I have taken your advice on this - sent them an email this morning providing a host of examples including odds balls such as a litter of kittens, a stray dog or an annoying crow so they do not feel boxed in to the usual.
3 of the 4 players are already quite taken by the idea - the 4th is newbie so I suspect she might feel a little overwhelmed with this prospect, but we'll see.

If you can somehow connect mechanics to it as an incentive....using the Inspiration mechanic or something similar...then that may further enhance it.

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines (Inspiration, additional/changes to TIBF, downtime benefits or the like).

 

[Sadras]

I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.

I have done just that for 2 sessions (when I remembered) and it works well with the right players and if as DM you keep checking their IBF to see how you can incorporate it. The Inspiration Point or d20 in this case needs to be valuable - not easily earned otherwise your compels could fall flat.

 

[Sadras]

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?

If they are too busy, well that is on them. I have asked my players to provide me (via email) these NPCs - I seriously doubt they will put the time and effort to create flavourless NPCs. Unlike Hussar I do think it might require some more work for the DM, but I'm suspecting the return to be greater.
I have only received positive feedback from my group and I don't expect my players to be unique.

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)...(snip)...My group favors discovery in RPGs.

I do not think it has to be an over scenario. I think a group or player is able to appreciate both aspects of the roleplaying game.

But it certainly won't work for every group, including mine.

You certainly know your group best so I'm not going to argue that point but you can only but try and see how they respond. The way I pitched it to mine in terms of their workload - was that they may create up to 5 NPCs (so 0 and 1 is good too) and they can provide me 2-5 lines for each NPC providing any, a combination or all of the following:
basic description, character role within the city, where/how you met and your current state with each other.

EDIT: I obviously also provided a rationale for why I pitched this idea to them.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I would like to see this put to a vote. Im really just curious which one most people think between the three most basic options. Those being 1. Yes 2. No 3. Neither particularly. Someone should embed a poll. That would be cool.