D&D General D&D may be a DELTA, not a TTRPG!

[Maxperson]

PETA- Pigs Eating Tasty Acorns. Wait is this not the acronym thread? begins slowly backing out

Plasmoids, Elves, Tieflings and Aasimar?

 

[bsss]

Yes, it kinda is.

First, if you lose one player and can't replace him, you can generally continue on playing the game. If you lose the DM and can't replace him, the game is over.

Second, the rules allow the DM to set aside any rules that replace those procedural parts you mention. Those are there as an aid to the DM, not a replacement for him.

Third, if you have to create a product in order to even be able to play without a DM, you've acknowledged his importance.

Lastly, none of that is to say that players are not also very important, as is their fun with the game. My argument is not about some DM power trip, but rather which role would be primary and why.

Of course a DM is important, but most vital? I think a game of a DM and no players is inert. A game of players and no DM can at least fake it sometimes with DM stand-ins.

Besides, I have played in procedural heavy D&D games where a player could have executed 25-40% of the DM's work just by rolling on tables and reading what happens, maybe another 25-40% by doing attack, skill, etc. rolls in the open. A table without a DM might just need some trust in collaboration and to take some extra narrative burden. I don't think the DM role is the most important element of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course a DM is important, but most vital? I think a game of a DM and no players is inert. A game of players and no DM can at least fake it sometimes with DM stand-ins.

Besides, I have played in procedural heavy D&D games where a player could have executed 25-40% of the DM's work just by rolling on tables and reading what happens, maybe another 25-40% by doing attack, skill, etc. rolls in the open. A table without a DM might just need some trust in collaboration and to take some extra narrative burden. I don't think the DM role is the most important element of the game.

Most vital isn't some horrible statement. It's simply that the primary role is the DM. If you need to have DM stand-ins to fake it "sometimes," that's also acknowledging the primacy of the DM role. For the DM and player roles to be equal, you'd need to be able to play all the time with no DM ever.

Again, this isn't some sort of argument for DM power trips, it's just a statement of the importance of the individual roles. I've been playing 43 years now and I've seen many games fold up because we lost the DM. Almost every game I've been in that lost a single player has continued on either as is, or with an easily found replacement.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think one of the things that causes confusion is that people talk about "Players" and "GMs" as though they're two completely different things. (And on here like they're two hostile groups constantly at each other's throats!) But all of them are 'players' in the sense that they're people participating in playing the game at hand, the GM just takes on a particular (typically unique) role in the game. With that perspective, since TTRPGs are multiplayer games you have to have multiple players ('are playing the game' sense) or it just doesn't work in the normal way. But you can have players ('not GM' sense) who kind of just show up and do little and the game will progress, especially if you have one or two very active and engaged players to help drive things. What really doesn't work is a disengaged GM, because things just don't happen or don't get resolved. And when organizing games, typically the difficult ones to find are GMs, not players.

Running organized play events (where you have one-shot-ish games) really highlights that - you pretty much always need more GMs (and more active GMs), but there's usually plenty of players. It's very common to have to say 'Hey, we've got 10 people interested in game X, can we get another GM volunteer?' but if you end up with only half the players you expected showing up, one of the GMs (usually the one who prepped less) will be happy to pull out a character folder and play as a non-GM instead.

I'm aware that solo versions of TTRPGs exist, but they're a niche thing not the standard mode, and are really the exception that proves the rule since, while they can be fun, they definitely don't hit all of the notes that a standard TTRPG does.

 

[mamba]

Besides, I have played in procedural heavy D&D games where a player could have executed 25-40% of the DM's work just by rolling on tables and reading what happens, maybe another 25-40% by doing attack, skill, etc. rolls in the open. A table without a DM might just need some trust in collaboration and to take some extra narrative burden. I don't think the DM role is the most important element of the game.

so basically you can have a game where the players take over the role of the DM rather than having a dedicated one.

In that case a DM with no players is a Solo-RPG player

 

[Reynard]

so basically you can have a game where the players take over the role of the DM rather than having a dedicated one.

In that case a DM with no players is a Solo-RPG player

Right. The GM is essential for a particular kind of RPG, but not all kinds.

 

[Byrd]

< silly >
Delta...
Sounds like a watershed moment.

< /silly >

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If so, it's bad satire since apparently nobody is getting the joke. Sure the acronym is absurd, but the point being made is lost.

People are pulling D&D away from being D&D, because they don't realize they're projecting their preferences onto the game as a whole, to the point that what they want should be called by a different name.

Or at least that's what I got out of it. And it's not like it's particularly hiding its "A Modest Proposal" structure....

 

[MGibster]

If so, it's bad satire since apparently nobody is getting the joke. Sure the acronym is absurd, but the point being made is lost.

It's really, really difficult to discern satire from run-of-the-mill discourse these days.

 

[Reynard]

KILL: Kleptomania Involving Limited Levels.