D&D General The DM is Not a Player; and Hot Topic is Not Punk Rock

[Jack Daniel]

If Gary Gygax, (kinda a big deal in these parts), was the author of the text...then a co-creator of the game, is advocating that players have veto power.

That excerpt was written by Frank Mentzer, and it's from the red box Basic Set, which was written for twelve-year-olds. It's not advocating giving the players veto power, it's a bit of advice being offered to kids learning how to play D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

So, do you want us considering the GM a non-sentient being that fundamentally cannot feel enjoyment? Or disappointment, frustration, or physical pain? A thing that can be engaged at any time day or night, to do our bidding and entertain us? And when they frustrate us, we start cursing them out, throwing things at them?

There's a non-zero number of people on these forums who sometimes appear to want exactly this: that the GM - or whatever is filling that role - be nothing more than a living breathing CPU willing to cater to the players' gaming needs and preferences with no thought to self.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I'm saying that arguing that the GM is a Player because they play the game is pointless. If people want to say "the GM is not a player" or "the GM is a player" to make a point about their roles, then that's something, but arguing the ipso facto nature of playing a game ignores how we typically use language in context.

I get that you’re arguing that, but in your argument you literally stated that the DM is not a player in your games because of those play preferences you listed, which implies that you are assigning baggage to the term “player.”

So I gather your answer to the question; "why is it important to you the the GM be called a player?" you answer would be something along the lines of "I am playing, so I must be recognized as a player." fair enough I guess, just seems unnecessary to me. Almost like someone needing to point out that the participants in a game of tag are all in fact players, even if they aren't usually described as such, because they are playing a particular game as opposed to more freeform play where the individuals aren't players.

No, to me it’s important that the DM be acknowledged as a player because I believe the game is supposed to be fun for the DM too, and losing sight of the fact that they are a player in a game de-emphasizes the importance of the DM’s enjoyment of the game. DMing isn’t a service one performs on the player’s behalf, it’s a leisure activity one engages in for their own enjoyment. The DM isn’t just a computer executing rules functions, they’re a player participating in a game.

 

[Istbor]

DMs are players. That's where I land.

If asked, my response will be I am playing D&D, or I played D&D, even if I am Dming.

I expect that the Players in a group allow for the enjoyment of all including the DM. Just ask I expect the DM to want to allow for the enjoyment for those playing the role of Player.

I certainly do not want any part of a D&D game where I must be a disinterested party. I certainly want my players to succeed in their goals, and in a small part, their goals are my goals, to have fun and continue the game. (I mean... hopefully we all share those goals)

Even in parts of the make-up of the game itself when I DM, some of what gets decided is not entirely on me. Will I seek out and suggest fun or interesting houserules that may enhance the fun or the theme of the campaign? Sure, absolutely! I won't just arbitrarily throw it in the game though. It has to be clear that everyone enjoys it or find it will add to the experience.

Same is said for the general theme of the campaign or adventure, things hammered out in session 0. If none of the players, including myself, can find a position where we can all find enjoyment (something I have yet to run into), then the game is not played until we do.

Comes down to just different roles. And as someone above stated, does the DM have a character sheet... um yes... I have tons. For possible helpful NPCs, for enemies or allies designed to be powerful, or all those monster stat-blocks. That's just a short-hand sheet in my eyes. Especially when I design my own monsters. We all have sheets, and we all expect to have a riping good time playing D&D together.

 

[Azzy]

No, I'm saying that arguing that the GM is a Player because they play the game is pointless.

Who exactly is saying that the DM is a Player? All I've see is people saying that the DM is a player (which is a different beast).

 

[Umbran]

There's a non-zero number of people on these forums who sometimes appear to want exactly this: that the GM - or whatever is filling that role - be nothing more than a living breathing CPU willing to cater to the players' gaming needs and preferences with no thought to self.

And there's a non-zero number of people who respond to suggestions that GMs ought to listen to players and talk things through, rather than make flat summary refusals, as if folks wanted the GM to be a living CPU.

The internet tends to drive discussion to artificial poles, through a number of rather toxic dynamics. One of the foremost of these is progressive misrepresentation of the positions others hold.

So, you know, keep on truckin', but consider whether that truckin' will be constructive.

 

[Ancalagon]

All Collies are dogs. Not all dogs are Collies.

Thank you for illustrating the root of the linguistic confusion.

Imagine a world where there are two breeds of dogs. The first breed is called collies. And the second breed is called... dogs.

So you could say that a collie is a dog, but a collie clearly isn't a dog. That's the problem. End of thread.

 

[happyhermit]

I get that you’re arguing that, but in your argument you literally stated that the DM is not a player in your games because of those play preferences you listed, which implies that you are assigning baggage to the term “player.”

Not "baggage", just context, which was my initial point. I also stated that "...the GM is very much not a Player..." (in my most preferred games) which is quite different that what you are saying I literally said, even if it is quite similar.

No, to me it’s important that the DM be acknowledged as a player because I believe the game is supposed to be fun for the DM too, and losing sight of the fact that they are a player in a game de-emphasizes the importance of the DM’s enjoyment of the game. DMing isn’t a service one performs on the player’s behalf, it’s a leisure activity one engages in for their own enjoyment.

Ok, I can understand the point of this much better than the ipso facto argument. But I would make a few points;

Having fun isn't predicated on being a "player", at all. You can have fun being a GM in a game, watching a game, or freeform play outside of a game, heck you can have fun working.

GMing doesn't have to be about having fun, in a particular moment or even overall. It can be about delving into serious issues, it can be therapy, it can paid labour.

Maybe I should just stop there and get to the larger point; "The GM should have fun because they are a player" just isn't very compelling to me in this context. "Fun" and "player" just aren't that inextricably linked

Who exactly is saying that the DM is a Player? All I've see is people saying that the DM is a player (which is a different beast).

People, probably, who knows. Earlier in this post you will see where the distinction was lost, it's not hard even when the subject of discussion. Seriously though, what I think is important is why somebody thinks it's useful to say the GM is a "player", even if they are not a "Player", or the other way around. My point is that the ipso facto definition isn't useful here.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not nonsensical if you don't use a straw man

Also, you didn't answer the question. What does NPC stand for? Who controls NPCs? What does PC stand for, and who controls those?

There is the answer

From the PHB, "One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee."

It's pretty clear that at least in 5e, the DM is a player who gets a different role.

 

[loverdrive]

Your question answers itself. GM has a different name for a reason. They run the game. You lose GM game over. You lose a few players game continues. Regardless of anyones personal preferences or hangups, just that one reality means the GM is on a different footing. They've got more power in any disagreement.

But will the game remain the same without a few players? (spoiler: it won't)

And what stops any of the players take over the GM's role, anyway?