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

[Olrox17]

DMs are never Players (capital P).
DMs can be players, if they’re engaging in d&d as a leisure activity for fun. If they’re dming for cash or other prizes, they’re not players.

But I feel like zarionofarabel and aldarc are showing more clearly what the discussion is really about: DM power.
Is the DM supposed to be the ultimate arbiter, leader, designer, author and authority, or just a guy that runs the monsters in combat by strict RAW and reads aloud text from a published adventure democratically chosen by the group? Or perhaps something in between?

 

[Charlaquin]

DMs are never Players (capital P).
DMs can be players, if they’re engaging in d&d as a leisure activity for fun. If they’re dming for cash or other prizes, they’re not players.

I dunno, professional athletes and high-stakes gamblers are still players. I don’t think playing a game for profit precludes one from being a player.

But I feel like zarionofarabel and aldarc are showing more clearly what the discussion is really about: DM power.
Is the DM supposed to be the ultimate arbiter, leader, designer, author and authority, or just a guy that runs the monsters in combat by strict RAW and reads aloud text from a published adventure democratically chosen by the group? Or perhaps something in between?

I think most folks would agree they’re something in-between. The DM has authority over the setting and rules, but they do well to take the players’ desires into account; after all, they are all playing a game together, and all ought to be able to have fun doing so.

 

[Imaculata]

after all, they are all playing a game together, and all ought to be able to have fun doing so.

This is the most important part to consider in my opinion. They are playing a game together, so they are all players, but with different roles.

 

[Aldarc]

Is the DM supposed to be the ultimate arbiter, leader, designer, author and authority, or just a guy that runs the monsters in combat by strict RAW and reads aloud text from a published adventure democratically chosen by the group? Or perhaps something in between?

The answer is obviously in-between and more multifaceted, though I'm not a fan of any game or style of play that promotes the GM as author. If the GM wants to be an author, IMO, they should not be in the hobby of playing cooperative tabletop games but should be writing a book instead.

I am skeptical of the privilege with which some GMs frequently talk about themselves and their own self-ascribed greatness in the role of being GMs, occasionally in the manner of self-aggrandizing autocratic dictators, which also seems to come with a veiled disdain for players, viewing them as entitled, disposable lesser beings who lack the GM's moral clarity and greater vision for their pristine world. Will none of the despicable peons have sympathy for the autocrats? Autocrats are people with feelings too.

This is the most important part to consider in my opinion. They are playing a game together, so they are all players, but with different roles.

It still surprises me that people still need to be reminded of this incredibly basic point.

 

[clearstream]

5e Player's Handbook (p. 5):


5e Dungeon Master's Guide:


Per the rulebooks, the DM is considered to be a player, albeit a specialized one. Categorically speaking, however, a specialized type of player is nonetheless a player.

If you were to argue the finer point of who counts as being a player, I suggest reading the arguments between Richard Royce and A J Kreider, and looking into formalism versus non-formalism. I suspect one could conjure up cases where a DM is not formally a player, while still carrying out functions normally associated with being a DM. More importantly, I think you can argue that those functions can be divided and shared: they're not welded to one participant.

A position one might then adopt that it is those functions - and not the person - of the DM, that are all that matters, so far as differences between them and other participants are concerned. One could then propose that were those functions to be shared around the table, then the justifications they putatively offer in support of special DM'ly prerogatives, must evaporate. On this theory, different choices about the functions themselves would also justify different levels of special rights.

I might well work from that theory, were I arguing the other side of this: I would deny appeal to DM'ly functions as a justification for special rights. Those who want to argue for special rights then need to resist the possibility of separating the functions - which seems futile, as we can very well see that some groups do exactly that - or come up with something else about the DM that justifies them.

On my side I would then suggest that a possible function is "decides how game rules work, whenever the group discerns more than one way that they could work" and that for groups with that function, whoever holds it does indeed have special rights: just those necessary to carry out the given function. Another group might replace that function with "a simple majority by vote decides how game rules work, etc". We could then agree on the theory, while still having DMs with/without special rights as suited our table.

 

[Olrox17]

I dunno, professional athletes and high-stakes gamblers are still players. I don’t think playing a game for profit precludes one from being a player.

Yes, those are professional players. I would also categorize somebody who plays D&D for cash in front of an audience as a pro player. Pro (read: paid) DMs, not so much, I would say they're more akin to a professional referee rather than a pro player. Not a meaningful distinction, anyway: I'm moving on from the strict definitions discussion.

I think most folks would agree they’re something in-between. The DM has authority over the setting and rules, but they do well to take the players’ desires into account; after all, they are all playing a game together, and all ought to be able to have fun doing so.

The answer is obviously in-between and more multifaceted, though I'm not a fan of any game or style of play that promotes the GM as author. If the GM wants to be an author, IMO, they should not be in the hobby of playing cooperative tabletop games but should be writing a book instead.

I am skeptical of the privilege with which some GMs frequently talk about themselves and their own self-ascribed greatness in the role of being GMs, occasionally in the manner of self-aggrandizing autocratic dictators, which also seems to come with a veiled disdain for players, viewing them as entitled, disposable lesser beings who lack the GM's moral clarity and greater vision for their pristine world. Will none of the despicable peons have sympathy for the autocrats? Autocrats are people with feelings too.

I also believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle for almost every group ever. Each and every group would probably answer a little differently though: different play styles, different jams.

For instance, while I do not consider myself to be an author DM simply because I like improvisation so darn much, I do not knock on the author style DMing, as long as the DM is good at it and the group is on-board from the start. I mean, if the group is not on board the game would probably never start to begin with, so that's kind of a moot point.

 

[Aldarc]

If you were to argue the finer point of who counts as being a player, I suggest reading the arguments between Richard Royce and A J Kreider, and looking into formalism versus non-formalism.

Or one could just play some D&D.

 

[clearstream]

The answer is obviously in-between and more multifaceted, though I'm not a fan of any game or style of play that promotes the GM as author. If the GM wants to be an author, IMO, they should not be in the hobby of playing cooperative tabletop games but should be writing a book instead.

For me that represents only a traditional view of what narrative can be. Traditional forms of narrative have been linear and static, certainly, but that is not our present nor our future. Non-linear, dynamic, interactive narrative is what I love about games!

Writing a book would not satisfy me, as author. Books lack the features that enable what I want to express... the experience I want to create.

 

[clearstream]

Or one could just play some D&D.

I concur with your sense here that informed arguments are fundamentally unwelcome

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, I’m not entirely satisfied with the idea of the game ending being a loss condition for the DM, as some games have a predetermined end point, and reaching it doesn’t feel like a loss for the DM. But my broader point that the DM doesn’t really try to win or lose, but rather tries to keep the game going still works, I think.

Players and DMs are all on “Team Table”, goal to be entertained. While everyone is being entertained (including DM), they’re winning. If people aren’t entertained they’re losing. When the table jacks in a campaign because it isn’t fun anymore (rather than it reaching a logical conclusion) then they have lost.