D&D General Why do you prefer DMing over Playing?

[Snarf Zagyg]

I love you Snarf, but I would also love for this to not become a discussion about economics.

I generally don't, but if you look at the original (mostly tongue-in-cheek post), it was pretty par for the course.

On a serious note, people can, and do, DM in all sorts of different ways. Hopefully, most of them are doing it in a way that serves them, and serves the people that are playing with them. But there is a weird and unacknowledged toxicity that occurs when people believe that the only correct thing is for DMs to cater to players and all of their needs.

Look, I get your point about being a teacher- but ... and I mean this ... you are paid to be a teacher. You are supposed to be catering to your students.

Most DMs are still not paid. It's something people do because they love to do it. And as I think almost all of us realize, being the DM is a much, much larger time-sink than being a player. Sometimes by a huge amount. It's a labor of love. Well, sometimes it's a labor of free pizza, but usually just love.

It's not always like that. Some groups rotate (good for them!). Some games offload responsibilities (great!). But generally, one person in a group has to spend more of their own time and labor on the game than everyone else- sometimes more than everyone else combined. That doesn't make them a "better person," but it does mean that, in those situations, we need to be cognizant of those differences. Heck, it's why there is, and always has been, a large imbalance between the number of people that play, and the number of people that run games.

I think most people are aware of the toxicity that can occur from a DM that is a jerk. But just as jerky are the players that demand to run the game without putting in the work necessary; more simply, if you demand that the game run a certain way, there's a simple way to have that happen. YOU DM IT.

Didn't need any fancy economics or econometrics in that.

 

[jgsugden]

....Why do you like being a DM more than being a player?

DMing is a unique experience. For the most part, so is each campaign in which I play. My games, the games DM 1 runs, the games DM 2 runs, etc... are all very different experiences and I enjoy aspects of each.

So as to the question of what I enjoy when I DM:

When I DM, I enjoy creating fun for others. My goal, as a DM, is to see those moments on my players' faces when something hits them emotionally and it really pops. That is the best part of being a DM - the payoff when the players really cross a threshold.

I also enjoy world crafting. I have spent 40 years in my homebrew. It has evolved - a lot. I can mentally walk down the streets of some of my cities and remember things that took place in the 1980s. I enjoy when an NPC drops a story hook based upon something that took place 20 years ago with other PCs. I like that I've built up a world with so many layers of lore built upon each other that if a player inspires an idea in me for where to set a story before them, I usually have multiple options using established and well known tools to bring that story to life.

I also enjoy the world I crafted. It is different than any other campaign setting, and it provides a lot of fun options. My campaign world has a surface that is 12 times larger than the earth. It has a roughly 1000 mile thick crust that then opens up into a Dyson Sphere like massive Underdark (with a purple 'sun'). It has 2.5 billion square miles of surface (mostly water), with a circumference that is 90,000 miles. The radius is roughly 14,000 miles. However, the interior is hollow, surrounding the second ‘dark sun’ in a Dyson Sphere style interior. This underdark surface is nearly 2.1 billion square miles of surface (a little over 10 times the size of earth's surface area) and is constantly lit by dim light from the interior purple sun. Gravity ‘flips’ roughly 500 miles down beneath the true surface (and above the Underdark surface). The star at the center is roughly 500 miles across and over 12,000 miles from the surface of the Underdark. Players have explored my campaign world for 40 years and so much of it has only the vaguest of descriptions. I am constantly able to play with the never endingly innovative toys of my setting and add to the lore.

 

[Cadence]

I have spent fifteen years as a college professor and still cannot figure out why so few teachers and professors understand this. My impression is it's worse among professors, but that's just an impression.

I don't think it makes the teacher or professor more important!

I'm trying to think of the right word or phrase - more requisite to the process as an individual? It feels like there is a large difference in what happens to the group of 201 people as a whole involved in a large lecture class if the professor gets sick right before class, and if one of the 200 students does. That is a different thing than how we value the individual instructor or student in their time of illness.

Is there something about human nature that conflates the two? Is it related to using "equal value" to describe intrinsic dignity as a human being and to describe whether two players help a sports team equally?

Anyway, how that gets to teachers thinking that the students aren't the ones who are central to the reason the school and education exist at all boggles me though! (Burnout and frustration in some cases?)

 

[iserith]

It looks like a lot of the responses suggest some people DM because other DMs aren't running games in the way they would prefer. It might be interesting to explore what those ways are. What are you doing that other DMs aren't doing?

For my part, I'm easy to DM for. If the game is funny and productive, I'm going to stick around. I don't much care if the DM doesn't do things as I do as long as those other two criteria are met. (Of course, some of what makes the game funny and productive is on the players, too!)

 

[Asisreo]

Not being the Life's Blood does not mean unimportant.

But seriously, a lot of DMs need to stow the ego.

It's not like I'm saying a DM should be revered just for putting on a robe. It's not to pump ego, but it's true that the DM can make or break a game. Without a DM, the game just doesn't function. At all levels, the DM dictates basically everything. And it takes a good DM to not let that get to your head. Or rather, doing so would make you a bad DM.

If a DM is able to entertain a group of players and themselves, I think they should give themselves props for that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It looks like a lot of the responses suggest some people DM because other DMs aren't running games in the way they would prefer. It might be interesting to explore what those ways are. What are you doing that other DMs aren't doing?

For my part, I'm easy to DM for. If the game is funny and productive, I'm going to stick around. I don't much care if the DM doesn't do things as I do as long as those other two criteria are met. (Of course, some of what makes the game funny and productive is on the players, too!)

I'm not sure that this is always the case. Or this is necessarily what people are saying.

For example, on those few chances when I get to play, I love it when the DM is doing things that I don't do. Having a DM run a game like I do would be a busman's holiday- not fun at all, because I am already used to that.

However, my observations about the process of DM formation is that it is common for new DMs to "form" by a process of frustration; that a group isn't meeting certain needs, or that a DM is a jerk, or something that triggers a splinter group to shoot off and someone to take the lead as the DM.

Not always, but often enough.

 

[iserith]

However, my observations about the process of DM formation is that it is common for new DMs to "form" by a process of frustration; that a group isn't meeting certain needs, or that a DM is a jerk, or something that triggers a splinter group to shoot off and someone to take the lead as the DM.

Not always, but often enough.

Similarly, I recommend DMs who feel unmotivated to go play in a pickup game with a random DM. Chances are decent it will go badly or at least have a lot of room for improvement. This often fuels the unmotivated DM to get back to preparing content and running games. I refer to this as "rage prep." It works like a charm.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Similarly, I recommend DMs who feel unmotivated to go play in a pickup game with a random DM. Chances are decent it will go badly or at least have a lot of room for improvement. This often fuels the unmotivated DM to get back to preparing content and running games. I refer to this as "rage prep." It works like a charm.

I love that ... rage prep!

Similarly, I have found that players who get frustrated with DMs (especially those that know how the game should go ...) are best served by taking a turn themselves. At a minimum, running a one-shot.

As a general rule, it can be edifying for most players to realize that it's easier to criticize than to do. That's why, in every game I've ever run for a long time now, there is a standing invitation for any player that wants to ... to take over. Please.

Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place then come down and shoot the survivors.

 

[payn]

It looks like a lot of the responses suggest some people DM because other DMs aren't running games in the way they would prefer. It might be interesting to explore what those ways are. What are you doing that other DMs aren't doing?

First thing that comes to mind is, using an Adventure Path as a foundation and not a page to page presentation. It is often a rookie mistake and/or misperception that a campaign module does all the prep work for them. Many of the modules begin with an adventure synopsis, move into maps and encounter info, and end with detailed setting and NPC info. You need to read them entirely before running to have the proper context to make them interesting. Also, its a much better experience if the GM isn't page flipping and pausing the game constantly to find the required info.

I have run into a few GMs who disregard the setting and flavor info. To them, this is unnecessarily complicated stuff that is of no value. If that is your default position, then we are likely not long for gaming together. Now, if you prefer to rip out the mechanics and season it with your own flavor, that I can get on board with. Additionally, new GMs might not have figured out how to combine the crunch and flavor yet, and in that case, I will help guide them as best I can.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That's a great solution. In hindsight, it would've been great to have that in place for those groups that failed. I've often said that not playing D&D always leads to more not playing D&D. People start expecting it to cancel, start making other plans, or just lose interest in a game that only happens once in a blue moon. Keeping a regularly scheduled, reliable date alone works wonders.

We had this issue in our long-running weekly game, and one solution we came up with was to fully commit to the group always playing. It meant that if the DM couldn't make it to a game, even last minute, someone else would be ready to run a one-shot, or host a different game.

It honestly saved our group!