Is the DM the most important person at the table

[prabe]

The fact that the players might want something you don't is kind of point isnt it? You leverage player engagement by allowing them include some elements in the setting they specifically want to engage with? Obviously it still needs to be collaborative, but by itself it doesnt sound bad. I'm sure there is some detail and nuance I'm missing hough.

I was perhaps being a little polite. There's a difference between choosing something I wouldn't have thought of, and choosing something I actively dislike, though that's not strictly what happened. What happened was that the player choices accumulated to something like a Steampunk setting (which I really don't like, much, but probably inevitable when one person wants to have Magic and another person wants to have Mad Science.) even though none of the individual choices was anything I had a real problem with, and I didn't want to veto player ideas in any event. That's most of why I say the setting felt disjointed.

 

[Fenris-77]

I was perhaps being a little polite. There's a difference between choosing something I wouldn't have thought of, and choosing something I actively dislike, though that's not strictly what happened. What happened was that the player choices accumulated to something like a Steampunk setting (which I really don't like, much, but probably inevitable when one person wants to have Magic and another person wants to have Mad Science.) even though none of the individual choices was anything I had a real problem with, and I didn't want to veto player ideas in any event. That's most of why I say the setting felt disjointed.

That makes sense. Setting creation might need a little bit of initial direction depending on the genre and how wide open the choices might be.

 

[prabe]

That makes sense. Setting creation might need a little bit of initial direction depending on the genre and how wide open the choices might be.

Agreed. I myself am less capable of that level of moderation and I have reverted to doing roughly all of the setting creation myself, allowing players to place things in blank spaces. If I allow more player input into a future campaign, it'll have a lot more direction/limits, to be sure. I am capable of learning (I keep telling myself).

 

[Jaeger]

... the DM IS the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work. He plans things and runs the game. …

...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. ...

This is all self evident.

GM/DM rules the roost. Period. It HAS to be fun for them.

If players do not like it, they can vote with their feet.

I and many other GM's I know have no problem getting long term players just running what we want to run.

Players are a dime a dozen - even the good ones. Which is why a good GM can easily afford to sift the wheat from the chaff.

 

[pemerton]

I'm the (overwhelmingly) main GM for my group. But I don't arrange the game sessions, and don't host. (My house is small; others in our group have big houses with nice big tables.)

I often initiate what we play. Other times it is done by vote across active campaigns or new systems/ideas that I suggest. The others certainly trust me to deliver something fun and worthwhile, but they're not embarrassed about having and voicing their own preferences!

 

[Hussar]

I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's. See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four. Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.

 

[Sadras]

I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's. See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four. Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.

True. You have some people voting along those lines (where they are the only DM at their table) gravitating towards DM being most important given rarity. On the other hand I'm the primary DM for our group but there are 2 others, but I would still cast my vote towards DM most important. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this category.

I think generally within the scope of our hobby DM's/GM's tick the most boxes in the hosting, prepping, planning session dates, keeping momentum going, recruiting, refereeing, entertaining...etc That is not to say that many players don't also tick these boxes from time to time or even often.

Even as a player I defer to the DM/GM. He has a unique role at the table that is not shared by any player. Sure a player can also be DM/GM at another table or another campaign - and in that table or campaign I would vote him at the most important.

Perhaps the real debate is what does most important mean in that context. Speaking for myself, and I'm not nearly eloquent to describe it correctly or fully, like some others on this board, but by the DM/GM being the most important it is the acknowledgement that he/she is the leader (spearheader) of the game being played. If not him/her, another will be nominated/found to take that position. Typically a RPG game cannot be played without such position being filled, thus making it the most important.

EDIT: And just like a leader in any organisation MUCH of the success of the overall venture is directly related to THEIR efforts.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm the (overwhelmingly) main GM for my group. But I don't arrange the game sessions, and don't host. (My house is small; others in our group have big houses with nice big tables.)

I often initiate what we play. Other times it is done by vote across active campaigns or new systems/ideas that I suggest. The others certainly trust me to deliver something fun and worthwhile, but they're not embarrassed about having and voicing their own preferences!

I am in sort of the opposite position as this. I am not currently the main GM for the group, but I host the games, arrange the schedule, and for the last two campaigns, have initiated what game we are playing.

 

[Maxperson]

I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's. See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four. Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.

Well, technically yes it does work. All that last sentence means is that the rest of the group voted with their feet and now you have to go out and get more "dime a dozen" players.

Personally, I like playing with people I also like outside of the game, so having to go get some strangers to play the game with in order to run the game like a Commandant isn't my thing and won't work for me.

 

[Imaro]

I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's. See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four. Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.

I think then the question becomes... How typical is your particular situation?