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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fair point. As one who believes the DM is a player, what other views would you think I hold? This part I do find very interesting.

So this is from late yesterday, so let me re-quote the relevant part of what you are responding to:

I thought (and continue to think) it is an interesting topic because there are groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is a player is self-evident, and also groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is not a player is self-evident.

And the view that you might have is usually (but not always) a proxy for other views; in other words, there tends to be a very strong correlation between the way in which a person might view this "self-evident" statement, and their views on a constellation of other topics.

I would start by saying that we are individuals. I am not a mind-reader. I do not know what you, Wolfram stout, are thinking! Instead, as I wrote, I think that there is a correlation between the assertions that this is "self-evident" on this thread, and the opinions that I've seen certain people have on other threads. I also want to say that it appears to be a strong correlation, but it isn't 100%, since there are some people that have taken different positions. Nothing is perfect, and people contain multitudes.

I may be a little vague, because I don't want to offend anyone. I have noticed since joining, and especially in the last couple of months, that there are two viewpoints that seem to repeatedly surface in threads; most recently, in the threads discussing the appeal of various races, or curated campaigns, GM authority, a question of agency, or collaboration with your players, and so on.

We can call these two viewpoints "DM Empowerment" ("DME" for short) and "Player Agency" ("PLA" for short). I'm just using those as labels.

These viewpoints tend to have a constellation of associated beliefs and points that they argue; for example, the DME are more likely to argue for curation and cite OD&D, and the PLA are more likely to argue for collaboration and cite Blades in the Dark. I kid, kind of, and overly simplify, but you get the gist.

The thing is, the actual play experience is likely quite similar at these tables; in my opinion, good tables in D&D that have communication tend to function well regardless of the theoretical underpinnings. So a DME table with experienced players and good communication most likely is not that different, in the main, than a PLA table with experienced players and good communication. And yet, given the nature of internet discussions, it always devolves into an angry exchange of, "I wouldn't let that player at my table," "Yeah, well, I wouldn't play at your table!"

This thread is similar, except the DME viewpoint adherents are mostly agreeing with the OP (who is attractive, articulate, and likely drinks expensive scotch) that the DM is not a player is self-evident, while the PLA viewpoint adherents are mostly saying that the DM is a player is self-evident.

And the thing is ... it's not self-evident. Because it's very-much context dependent. If you poke hard enough, both sides will acknowledge that there might be an issue with how self-evident the claim is, simply because language is context-dependent. As I've analogized before, whether you call someone a "Doctor" is not some immutable fact, but depends on the circumstances; whether you think the DM is a player isn't really about some dictionary definition, or even a deep contextual search for what it means to "role shift" when you describe the roles of the participants of a D&D game, but tends to be about a deeper meaning.

The original person I quoted, @Campbell , was pleasant enough to expound on what he meant when originally states that "a DM is a player like any other player." It's not just a neutral statement defining terms; it contains within it the ideal of shared responsibility, and denial of curation, and denial of authority to the DM. The thing is- that's cool! I've read enough of these threads to understand that this is a valid way to think about TTRPGs in general, and about D&D. I might disagree with it, but that's neither here nor there.

So while there are some people that are treating this as a surface-level conversation (what do these words mean, Alex?*), for the most part this is not about terms. This is really about an underlying conception of the nature of the roles in D&D; is the DM "a player like any other player," which is to say an equal peer with a different role, but no particular responsibility or authority from the role, or is the DM not like any other player, and thus has a different responsibility and authority because of that role?

It's not that there is a "right" answer there, but the idea that this is semantics, word play, or self-evident, is not correct. IMO.


*I would go back to the idea that I have expounded on several times regarding doctorates, and how they are context dependent. If you have a PhD, you are called a Doctor (normally, in the US). But if someone screams, "Is there a doctor in the house?" you would not respond, because that is (in context) asking for a medical doctor. If you have an honorary PhD, you do not call yourself "Dr.", but the bestowing university might do so in written correspondence (because hey, money!). And so on.

 

[Scott Christian]

Hasbro-brand Dungeons & Dragons is a contrived identification with nerd subcultures to manufacture an anti-authoritarian identity and make millions. The $39.99 you paid for the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount would be better used buying art supplies to create your own campaign world.

Ahem. Where was I? Oh, yes, the following quote from @Campbell has me thinking, um, thoughts. Lots of thoughts.

For what it's worth I think any group should be expected to make the game their own. I just think that should be a communal process. I believe that the experience is best when we create it together. The GM is a player like any other player.

I should start by saying that I think Campbell is smart, articulate, and has good opinions (probably smells good, too!), so this isn't about Campbell, but I am using his quote (most of which I agree with!) to illustrate a point that I see repeatedly stated that I very much disagree with!

My assertion: In D&D, the DM is NOT a player.

Before delving into this topic, let me start with a few caveats.
First, inasmuch as someone is saying that the DM is just a person, and other players are just people, and we are all just people ... I think that's a great sentiment, and I share it. But saying that the DM and the players are just people is not the same as saying that the DM is a player.
Second, I am going to be discussing D&D. This is in the D&D forum. The quote I was responding to was also from a thread that I posted in the D&D forum. There are a lot of TTRPGs out there. There are some that function without a DM, some that are (arguably) board games, and some that get rid of the "TT" altogether (LARPing, improv comedy, but I repeat myself ....). While many people advocate for different styles, and methods, of gaming (which is good!), that's not really what I am interested in. If you have examples of TTRPGs that are NOT D&D, that have a GM as player, that's great! But I am interested in the question of the DM as player in D&D.


1. Common Usage. You know we poor DMs have to show ourselves in society from time to time, just to remind the public that we are not savages.

Not to be pedantic, but there is a reason that we have different words for "player" and "DM." These different terms are baked into the game and rules of the game, and even the basic nomenclature of every edition's books (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide). If you have a game, and you advertise that you need players, and someone shows up, you wouldn't say, "Oh, thank goodness, you get to run the game! After all, you're a player, therefore a DM." By the same token, if a DM is running the game, and in the middle of it says (without warning or prior consent), "Eh, Johnny, it's time for you to DM, because after all, I'm a player," that would be .... not kosher. This is dead horse that does not need beating, but the reason we have different words for player and DM is because they occupy different roles in the game.


2. Division of Roles. Posting on internet forums is the act of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

What is one of the most iconic images of AD&D? That's right ... you know it. Otus. Trampier. DM SCREEN. You know it, if you played back then, because you stared at that screen from the other side (if you were a player) for hours, days, weeks, years. The divisions of roles between DM and player is not just codified in the terms and the rules of the game, in many D&D games there is actually a physical presence that exists that demarcates this distinction. I don't want to belabor this point, either; there are DMs that prefer to roll their dice in the open, and DMs that don't mind having maps, or notes, in the open, but it is also the case that every single edition of D&D has produced DM's screens. Not to go all Pink Floyd on you, but this wall isn't a metaphor.

In the most recent edition, 5e, the difference is put like this:
In the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.
One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm? Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.
PHB 5.

Later, the three steps of How To Play are:
1. The DM describes the environment. ...
2. The players describe what they want to do. ...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
PHB 6.

Again, this should be basic, but it is important within the context of the division between the player and the DM. To use an analogy; if a group of people get together to play sports, and one of the players takes on the role of the referee for the other players, then that referee is no longer a player, and the other players are not referees. This isn't to say that people can't get together and play a pick-up game and each call their own fouls, but once a single person is the referee, that person is no longer a player. The reason should be obvious- imagine the neutral arbiter of the game also playing. It would seem ... odd. Which leads to my last point ....


3. The Division of Roles Matters in D&D. I will explain my principles to you, and if you don't like them? Well .... I have other principles.

When I am playing D&D, one of my biggest warning signs when it comes to DMs is simple- the "DMPC" (sometimes called the DMNPC). Sure, maybe someone, somewhere, has done this well. Anything is possible! But IMO, the DM is already in control of the world; the NPCs, the monsters, the politics, the economics, what is going on "off stage." For a DM to want to control her own PC is an indication that this isn't enough; the DM also wants to play. To circle back to the original quote- the DM is a player, like any other player. This has never worked well in any campaign I've been a part of, because the DM is not a player.

OTOH, when I'm a DM or a player, I get concerned about players that are trying to "DM" from the player position. To use the three-step "how to play" loop, above, different players will have different facility with the rules, or with the ability to narrate, and I have seen players attempt to force certain results by usurping certain steps (such as narrating results, when other players are not doing so).

This is a fundamental issue for me when it comes to D&D, which is why I thought about it for a while when I saw the quote above, which is representative of a number of times that I have seen this. Again, there are other TTRPGs that are built in a different way, but when it comes to D&D, there is a distinction between players and the DM that is useful to maintain, both as a matter of language and in terms of the roles that they play at the table.

Well said Snarf. It is clear. As precise as it needs to be. I particularly like the way you explain your second point. The physical and verbal components are central to everyone coming to an understanding.
Thanks for this.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And I think that's because the game has two categories of player. One category is people playing the game, where the DM is "like any other player." All people at the table are playing the game. The second category is role, where one player is DM and the rest of the players are Players. The DM is not a Player, but he is a player. If someone can't understand that distinction, it's going to cause problems when they participate in this discussion.

I think that the moment someone says “like any other player”, the natural question is “in what respect”?

I think everyone can find simple examples of ways in which the DM is like other players (has fun, rolls dice) and ways in which they are different (tends to control multiple characters).

 

[Campbell]

The response that spawned this thread mostly comes from a rejection of curated experiences. What makes roleplaying games interesting to me on a narrative level is that they are not curated. They are messy because no one controls both the protagonists and the antagonists. What makes them interesting as games is that "the board" is expansive and so large it cannot be contained in anyone's head. I think leaning into that emergent play only makes sense instead of trying to manage it or control it.

Also as a fan of independent music and film the conflation of curation with DIY upset me in my soul. Like deeply.

Here's the thing - when I run games I am not providing an experience. I am playing a game with my peoples. When I am on the other side of the screen I do not want to be provided for. I want to play a damn game. I want this to be a thing we are doing together. That does not necessarily mean shared world building or collaborative storytelling. It just means everyone is expected to bring it and not be precious about their contributions.

What I am saying is that (in my opinion of course) the GM should see the other players sitting at the table as peers. More like bandmates than audience members. Like the dealer does not stop being player in poker.

In general I really like how Pathfinder 2 talks about customizing the game for your group.

THE FIRST RULE

The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is yours. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting adventures with friends. If any other rule gets in the way of your fun, as long as your group agrees, you can alter or ignore it to fit your story. The true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves.

It's emphatic that changing the game is a group decision and highlights that the game is for everyone.

 

[Campbell]

I want to clarify where I stand DM Authority. I absolutely believe in the wherewithal to make judgment calls where it makes sense. A lot of times DM/GM judgement is the best solution to making sure play follows the fiction. I just think it should be purposeful and constrained - not used to guide play where they want it to go. I will go to the mat for applied GM judgement.

What I tend not to be a fan of is the conceit that anyone is above the game or group.

 

[clearstream]

The response that spawned this thread mostly comes from a rejection of curated experiences. What makes roleplaying games interesting to me on a narrative level is that they are not curated. They are messy because no one controls both the protagonists and the antagonists.

This can be true no matter where we are on the spectrum of DME to PLA, right? Unless we are all the way to the DM chooses the player character actions (but I have never encountered a group that does that.)

What makes them interesting as games is that "the board" is expansive and so large it cannot be contained in anyone's head. I think leaning into that emergent play only makes sense instead of trying to manage it or control it.

Well, they are fundamentally incomplete: an abstraction or representation. Symbolic. That's a core virtue and it does indeed mean that the board can be contained in one person's head. Think about Tolkien's view on discovering his world. It was all there... or able to be consistently created on the fly from the conceptual scaffolding or world rules that were there.

It's emphatic that changing the game is a group decision and highlights that the game is for everyone.

Perhaps with a new group / DM. I generally find that my groups choose to trust my decisions. But then I am very much DME because I see a virtue in it. And that is completely without being PLA. Perhaps they do not need to be seen as polar opposites, but more choices about control over what. Other players might have complete control over some things, and DMs over other things. Players might even have different levels of control, for instance fiat over their own character's actions.

Would anyone really want to say "deciding what your character does is a group decision: the game is for everyone"?

 

[Aldarc]

Would anyone really want to say "deciding what your character does is a group decision: the game is for everyone"?

I don't know. That sounds like a great game about the group piloting a mecha-combiner.

 

[prabe]

I don't know. That sounds like a great game about the group piloting a mecha-combiner.

Or if you have fewer players, Pacific Rim: The Game?

 

[Campbell]

I vehemently disagree with that idea. That assumes that every player is a fundamental and vital part of the game, and that's simply not always the case. Many players are simply there to have a good time, or engage socially. Does their lack of commitment make that game uninteresting, even if other players are committed to it? I cannot accept that. What if a new player comes in, and engages casually? Does the whole suddenly become uninteresting?

I think if we are going to have any measure of social equity at the table they should be. I expect everyone at the table to meaningfully contribute and value everyone else's contributions. My experience is that players (on either side of the screen) who do not engage with the people they are playing with are absolutely a drag on the experience for me on either side of the screen.

With new players I will make every effort to make them feel comfortable and engage with them (on either side of the screen). I expect the same from everyone else at the table too. I do not expect new players to engage with the same skill and knowledge as the other players at the table, but I do expect them to enthusiastically play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also as a fan of independent music and film the conflation of curation with DIY upset me in my soul. Like deeply.

While I disagree with you on this (also as a fan of independent music and film), and I think I addressed this earlier, I do apologize as any upset was unintentional.

We feel the things we feel deeply; so I will leave you with the following thought:

Any old soul is worth saving, at least to a priest.
But not every soul is worth buying. So you can take any attempt to convince you to sell yours as a compliment.