Is the DM the most important person at the table

[prabe]

I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.

I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.

I enjoy it like no other gaming experience. When I'm on (which I have been, more than not, since I started running 5E almost two years ago) there's nothing else that engages so much of my brain.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.

I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.

I think it isn't an unusual trait among DMs.

If you don't enjoy it, you probably won't last long as a DM, unless you stick to modules or have a talent for improvisation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a good idea. Starting with published stuff also gives you an idea of what you need, if you ever write your own. The fact I struggle to make sense of published settings doesn't make this bad general advice, just advice I'm unlikely to think to give.

Yeah, it can be tough. I find it's tough for a RPG setting book to do all the jobs that are expected of it. Usually, any individual book will offer a few things that are useful, and then the rest is just filler, and it can be hard to determine the difference.

I like shorter, to the point kind of guides than to the big encyclopedic volumes that give you all the world's history and every town and so on. There seems to be a push these days for guides that are more "teach a man to fish" in approach. I hope that continues.

This is part of why I write things on index cards. Granted, it's more monsters than NPCs, but I do re-use them. A parallel is to not worry too much about NPC stats until they matter. If you have a grand vizier sort, just have an idea until/unless you need his stats. If the players never engage, they'll never miss the work you didn't do.

Yeah, definitely. There's no need to detail every NPC. If something comes up, and all of a sudden you need stats for the Captain of the Guard, there are plenty of stat blocks that would suit. Knowing where to find them, or printing certain ones ahead of time for ease of reference is the key here.

The use of index cards can be great here. I've done that where I jot down as much as I can for any monster on an index card for reference during play, and I include the book and page number where I can find it. Then I can clip those index cards to my DM screen (which otherwise almost always goes unused) or to a clipboard so I can reference them easily.

I used to use them for initiative too, and would cycle through the cards. When I came the Troll's turn, I had its stats right there on my card. We've changed how we do initiative, but until we did I found that very helpful.

This is good. Also, third-party products for things like monsters or items or spells, if you want to throw the occasional curveball at your players. You might need to vet with some care, but there are guidelines in the DMG that are helpful, here.

Yeah, I think trying different tools is key to finding the right ones for you. Like you mention that setting guides don't really work for you, but I think it would probably be a good idea to check one out occasionally to see if there might be one that does something different, that does work for you.

This is kinda related to the previous one, but the idea of snagging ideas from other media is solid. Even if your players don't catch the references, it'll make it easy for you to remember. I have some powerful quasi-deities in my setting, one of whom is named for Dante Alighieri and another is named for Randall Flagg.

Yeah, sometimes I might intend for the references to be noticed, other times no. With the Riggs and Murtaugh, it was really just so I had a dynamic between the two (old veteran/young reckless guy) and could lean on physical descriptsions of Danny Glover and Mel Gibson. I think I had the Murtaugh guy say "I'm too old for this $#!+" but I wasn't concerned if anyone picked up on it at all. It was more about the mnemonic trigger of "These guys are like Riggs and Murtaugh" giving me a guide in play and saving any details I needed to prepare or anything like that.

This. Very much this. Character actions and decisions have consequences. Also, if your players start speculating around the table, take that as an opportunity to either prove them right, or to prove them wrong; either result can be fun for all concerned.

I find that the more players are engaged, the more likely they start speaking more and discussing more, which gives the GM a chance to breathe. This is one of those intangible benefits, and again, what does the trick will vary, but if you can engage players and get them discussing things in detail, and deciding on how to proceed, it'll not only buy you time, but you may hear something they say that inspires you, and you can incorporate it into play.

This is part of why I don't prep more than the upcoming session. I often/usually don't know where the players are going to be at the end of the session, so it's easier to prep less. Overflow happens, and isn't bad, and stuff that gets missed can be recycled. This isn't to suggest going all "quantum ogre," but you can certainly use a monster block later in a different context, or shift parts of an idea the party never encountered.

Yeah, I have general ideas on things, but the players definitely go off in their own crazy ways at times. For many folks, the keyed dungeon is kind of the classic archetype of an adventure, so having a dungeon that is not fully mapped or stocked ahead of time just doesn't make sense. I would have agreed years ago, but my group and I have moved away from that kind of site based adventure, so it's made more sense to try different approaches.

Again, this. Know yourself, and how much bandwidth you have. I don't have a problem tracking initiative, but some tables find it faster/easier if someone other than the DM does so. If there's, say, a party-allied NPC, don't be afraid to hand that off to a player to run in combat. Also decide whether you want ACs and DCs to always be secret. I usually announce ACs, at least after a couple rounds. Encourage players to roll to-hit and damage at the same time (and seriously consider doing this yourself).

I usually don't give out ACs until a few attack rolls have given an indication of where it likely is....but yeah, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What does keeping it secret yield in play versus just saying it right up front? I think GMs have to ask these questions and decide what's actually best rather than just doing what they've always done. They may decide that what they've always done is best....if so, great.....but there may be things where you discover that, in play, doing things differently actually is an improvement.

This is a big part of why I use my index cards for monsters and occasional NPCs. Even if I have to sort through a stack of index cards, that's still quicker than finding things across three or four books.

I'm not really thinking of things that aren't in this. There are some people who try to get the prep onto one page, so there's no flipping. I try to make it easy to read, so there's white space, so it takes more pages. Tastes will vary here. I also try to have a solid handle on what's going on and use the dice kinda like an oracle--I'm either rolling to see how much a given NPC knows, or I'm rolling to see whether he sees through a PC who's trying to snow him; makes things a little less predictable.

Yeah, i try to get my session bullet points and NPC list all on one page just so it's easy to read, etc. I don't cram all the monster stats etc. on that, just my general notes.

I also make up index cards for important NPCs and hand them to my players. Ideally, I'll even have a picture of some sort that I print and stick to the card. I find it helps the players keep track of NPCs and I don't have to constantly remind them of who everyone is, because they can check it themselves.

If you're writing your own adventures and your stuck, try an oracle. Tarot or I Ching, if you feel comfortable doing so, or something like Rory's Story Dice (which you can get as an app) if you prefer something without mystical baggage. In either case, you're not completely bound to the oracle; just use it to see if a connection you'd missed emerges, or as a starting idea from which you can diverge. This isn't quicker, necessarily, but it might be easier and/or less stressful.

That's a great alternate method. It may not save time, but you never know.....maybe someone would just continue to go back and forth in their mind about the best way to proceed, but if they gave the decision up to a method like that, it may help them commit.

I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.

I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.

I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players.

The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.

 

[atanakar]

I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players.

The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.

I never plan more than one game in advance. The current campaign I'm running are all one-shots that have developed into a campaign over time. After each game I take into account what happened and prepare the next.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, it can be tough. I find it's tough for a RPG setting book to do all the jobs that are expected of it. Usually, any individual book will offer a few things that are useful, and then the rest is just filler, and it can be hard to determine the difference.

I like shorter, to the point kind of guides than to the big encyclopedic volumes that give you all the world's history and every town and so on. There seems to be a push these days for guides that are more "teach a man to fish" in approach. I hope that continues.

Yeah. There's really not much need for more than the area surrounding where the campaign begins, at least at first. Holds true for published stuff and for homebrew. I think it'd be good for someone (probably not WotC, given the publishing schedule they're sticking to) to publish a guide for new DMs on creating and running settings. Maybe it exists somewhere, or maybe something for another game might serve, though the latter really doesn't seem as useful to me as it might, because I'm thinking about all these people coming to the game without past game experience and little-to-no experience in system conversion.

Yeah, I think trying different tools is key to finding the right ones for you. Like you mention that setting guides don't really work for you, but I think it would probably be a good idea to check one out occasionally to see if there might be one that does something different, that does work for you.

Agreed. I sometimes buy setting books, if they have enough crunchy bits (character items, magic, items) that I feel it's worth my money.

I find that the more players are engaged, the more likely they start speaking more and discussing more, which gives the GM a chance to breathe. This is one of those intangible benefits, and again, what does the trick will vary, but if you can engage players and get them discussing things in detail, and deciding on how to proceed, it'll not only buy you time, but you may hear something they say that inspires you, and you can incorporate it into play.

Yup. Listen to your players. They'll tell you what's working, and what they enjoy, and what they want to see, all without really meaning to.

I usually don't give out ACs until a few attack rolls have given an indication of where it likely is....but yeah, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What does keeping it secret yield in play versus just saying it right up front? I think GMs have to ask these questions and decide what's actually best rather than just doing what they've always done. They may decide that what they've always done is best....if so, great.....but there may be things where you discover that, in play, doing things differently actually is an improvement.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I do it. If everyone needs to save, I announce the DC. Just seems to streamline play some (unless I don't want them to know they didn't save, of course).

That's a great alternate method. It may not save time, but you never know.....maybe someone would just go back and forth in their mind about the best way to proceed, but if they gave the decision up to a method like that, it may help them commit.

If someone is trying to decide between two things, the procedure is easy: Flip a coin; whatever you find yourself rooting for, do; if you don't find yourself rooting for anything, go with what the coin says.

I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players.

The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.

I really GMing in-session, and I really enjoy the prep, because it's a more solitary creative endeavor (though I'm more about words than visuals, can't draw or anything to save my life). And these days I have a lot of time. So, it's kinda an all-around win. [/QUOTE]

 

[Hussar]

IMO, it has nothing to do with imagination (lacking or otherwise) and everything to do with play style.

Lets face it, asking for random court NPCs is potentially problematic. The players could end up giving you NPCs that are hard to work in to what your planning. You could do it the other way around, getting the NPCs and then building the adventure around them as some have suggested, but unless the main issue is writer's block, that could easily end up being more work as you try to bodge disparate elements together.
/snip

Except that @Maxperson admits that he could have resolved his issues in 10 seconds. But, then, we get this reaction:

Why do you want to spoil a good chunk of the fun of the players?

For me and my players this wouldn't spoil anything. Having a murder mystery, knowing that it's a possible frame job and having flawed inside information would be a ton of fun for us. For your bunch, obviously not so much. So, instead of presuming that all groups are the same and that they would have their fun spoiled, particularly when I was simply giving a single example that was not meant as a hard and fast blanket rule, why not simply do as you did, spend ten seconds on adding something constructive to the conversation about how my idea could be modified to work at other tables?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not handing out panaceas here. I'm giving suggestions.

@hawkeyefan gave out a list of excellent ideas on how to reduce DM's prep. But, why aren't you, @Maxperson and @Fanaelialae jumping up and down on him for forcing play styles? He's telling you to buy modules. Maybe your group doesn't like modules. Why aren't you accusing him of badwrongfun for suggesting using modules? Why aren't you jumping up and down widdling all over his ideas?

Because, as far as I'm concerned, all I did was offer a suggestion. He offered several suggestions. We're being productive and attempting to show methods for reducing DM's prep. Instead of repeatedly telling me why my idea won't work at your table, why don't you actually add something to the conversation?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except that @Maxperson admits that he could have resolved his issues in 10 seconds. But, then, we get this reaction:

I'm not Max.

For me and my players this wouldn't spoil anything. Having a murder mystery, knowing that it's a possible frame job and having flawed inside information would be a ton of fun for us. For your bunch, obviously not so much. So, instead of presuming that all groups are the same and that they would have their fun spoiled, particularly when I was simply giving a single example that was not meant as a hard and fast blanket rule, why not simply do as you did, spend ten seconds on adding something constructive to the conversation about how my idea could be modified to work at other tables?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not handing out panaceas here. I'm giving suggestions.

@hawkeyefan gave out a list of excellent ideas on how to reduce DM's prep. But, why aren't you, @Maxperson and @Fanaelialae jumping up and down on him for forcing play styles? He's telling you to buy modules. Maybe your group doesn't like modules. Why aren't you accusing him of badwrongfun for suggesting using modules? Why aren't you jumping up and down widdling all over his ideas?

Because, as far as I'm concerned, all I did was offer a suggestion. He offered several suggestions. We're being productive and attempting to show methods for reducing DM's prep. Instead of repeatedly telling me why my idea won't work at your table, why don't you actually add something to the conversation?

The OP is about whether the GM's role is the most important, not about methods of making the GMs job easier. If it were the latter, then I would agree that I am not contributing. However, given the actual topic of the thread, and how difficulty of GMing arguably pertains to it, I would say that I am contributing to the thread. Although, it might be fair to say that at this point we're both beating a dead horse...

 

[Hussar]

Topics drift. For the past fifteen or twenty pages, some couple of hundred responses, we've been talking about possible methods for reducing DM prep.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Topics drift. For the past fifteen or twenty pages, some couple of hundred responses, we've been talking about possible methods for reducing DM prep.

They certainly do, and I never claimed you were off topic. However, the reduction of DM prep, as it was brought up in this thread, was used to justify why DMing isn't hard (or at least why it isn't as hard as some make it out to be). So while you (and perhaps others) may have drifted into discussing prep reduction, my (and perhaps others') attempt at rebutting that argument and pointing out circumstances where it doesn't work is pertinent to the thread.

I don't expect you to recollect this, because as you say this has been a long thread, but my stance is that while the DM's role is harder than that of a player, that doesn't necessarily make the DM more important. In fact, I dispute the usefulness of the term "important", because it's a fairly subjective term. So I don't think our stances are as far apart as they may appear at first glance. We simply disagree on a few particulars.

 

[Hussar]

As far as that goes, no, I'm in total agreement with you. I don't believe that it is particularly useful to frame the notion of the DM being more "important " at all. Right with you there.

I'm not even totally convinced that the role is "harder". More work, sure, but, not really "harder" in the sense that it takes some sort of special training or skill to do. And, if we reduce the workload, then, it's not really any harder in the sense of taking more time either.