Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Eltab]

Is the DM the most important person at the table? Well, the session doesn't happen if he can't get there. If the DM is distracted and not paying attention, the result is unsatisfying for everybody. Whereas a single player can miss and the session goes on.

But ... With great power comes great responsibility. The DM has to provide an enjoyable experience, both with his own efforts and by managing the rest of the individuals into behaving as a group, IC and OOC.

Do not look at the question "Who is most important?" and answer "I have the power!". Instead, look at it through the lens of Servant Leadership.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe for your group. Like I said, I don't think this is nearly as typical or expected as you seem to be suggesting it is (or ought to be).

Yeah, it's more "ought to be", I think. Silly comparison in a way, but my father once told me that if people waited until they were ready to be parents to have kids, no one would have kids. Same thing here....you have to do it to learn it. And others have to be willing to let you learn it, and try and help with that.

I'm not saying that my suggestions would work for everyone....there will always be exceptions. But I just think that the more we treat DMing as this difficult job that only few are suited for, the more likely that will be exactly what it is.

My players are my family. I mainly play, because my kids asked to learn the game. However, even though most of them are teens, they are nowhere near ready to take on the role of the DM. I am currently working on getting them to take better notes (a skill some of them GREATLY need in school as well). I am also working on getting them to review certain parts of the PHB before each session. In time, hopefully some of them will be able to take some of the maintenance chores off of me, but for the foreseeable future, I am the only one who does this. And it is a TON of work, especially since I am just as new to this as the oldest kid at home is.

I would LOVE to have another group nearby in which I could just be a player and learn from that end, but even if my very full schedule would allow that, we live in too small of a community. I have thought about finding an online game, but the schedule thing is an issue.

First off, that's awesome that you learned the game for your kids!

Being a new DM and also having new players....who also happen to be your children....that's gonna be a pretty tricky thing. The note taking is probably a great start because, as you say, it has potential to be helpful in real life.

If they're teens, then I'd likely suggest testing the waters a bit to see what they can do to help. You may be surprised. And if not, then you know for sure they're not ready for certain things.

Something like looking up a rule or spell that's come up. Instead of play halting entirely while you look up the spell, have one of the kids do it, while you move on the next player's turn. After he next player has gone, have the other one read the spell entry so you can all determine how it worked. That kind of thing.

I usually start off each session by asking one of the players to remind me what happened. Usually, everyone jumps in to help summarize everything that happened, and then we get started. I find that's a good way to engage them quickly.

Maybe use index cards for initiative, and have one of them cycle through the cards after each turn and announce who's next.

It's certainly possible that these ideas may not work, but I'd say give it a try. You may find your job getting a bit easier as DM, and maybe the kids get a better grasp of all the things that are going into the game. I know they're young, but my friends and I were pre-teens when we really got going with D&D, and I'm sure plenty of other folks on these boards started at a similar age. We were far from perfect at it, and there were plenty of things that we pretty much made up our own way of doing, but we were having fun and learning.

 

[Hussar]

Swimming through the thread and replying as I see stuff:

I disagree. A good player going along with a bad GM might make it palatable where it otherwise wouldn't be, but it won't make it good.

Whereas the game is likely be good with a good GM, irrespective of player skill.

Everyone's fun is important, but the skill of the GM is more relevant to the quality of the experience than the skill of the player(s), IME. Part of that is in fact because a good GM recognizes that everyone's fun is important, whereas an unskilled/bad GM might not.

I've seen more than a few groups that stayed together despite the DM, not because. The group was great - got together well, engaged, so on and so forth, but, the DM was just flat out bad. So, yeah, it does happen. If the group is lucky, someone will come along and inherit that group.

/snip

I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through). But I have seen good players who make poor DMs (largely because of disorganization, poor planning, lack of rules knowledge, etc)

Very true. And, I'd take it a step further that if you are a player who is always a player, and never a DM, then you probably aren't a very good player. It takes getting into the big daddy chair a few times just to recognize what a good game actually looks like from the outside, rather than simply inside your own head.

IOW, get out there and run a game.

 

[The Green Hermit]

First off, that's awesome that you learned the game for your kids!

Being a new DM and also having new players....who also happen to be your children....that's gonna be a pretty tricky thing. The note taking is probably a great start because, as you say, it has potential to be helpful in real life.

If they're teens, then I'd likely suggest testing the waters a bit to see what they can do to help. You may be surprised. And if not, then you know for sure they're not ready for certain things.

Something like looking up a rule or spell that's come up. Instead of play halting entirely while you look up the spell, have one of the kids do it, while you move on the next player's turn. After he next player has gone, have the other one read the spell entry so you can all determine how it worked. That kind of thing.

I usually start off each session by asking one of the players to remind me what happened. Usually, everyone jumps in to help summarize everything that happened, and then we get started. I find that's a good way to engage them quickly.

Maybe use index cards for initiative, and have one of them cycle through the cards after each turn and announce who's next.

It's certainly possible that these ideas may not work, but I'd say give it a try. You may find your job getting a bit easier as DM, and maybe the kids get a better grasp of all the things that are going into the game. I know they're young, but my friends and I were pre-teens when we really got going with D&D, and I'm sure plenty of other folks on these boards started at a similar age. We were far from perfect at it, and there were plenty of things that we pretty much made up our own way of doing, but we were having fun and learning.

I made my oldest take on two characters this time, so that I only have to do one on top of DMing, so that's a start! Other than that, though, the two oldest have access to our campaign journal and I make them write up our progress before I fill in the missing pieces and smooth it all out. I am also having all of the kids take turns with reading the previous session's journal at the start of the new session. (I take part in this rotation, too.)

The older two are getting pretty good at looking stuff up mid-session. It's the pre-session prep that they are weak on, although they are getting better. I have absolutely no idea how they can keep track of their inventories, though. To my eyes, they have no rhyme or reason.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know whether I would say that GMing is hard per se, but I would say that it is challenging in ways that being a player isn't. It is a greater responsibility. Not everyone wants that.

There's a certain bar that exists when you're a GM. A bare minimum to be able to run a game. Either you need to prep (which requires at least a modicum of time and effort), or be able to improvise well (which doesn't necessarily come naturally at first). Ideally, both. Whereas the minimum for a player is just showing up.

If the GM is off their game for the night, it will impact the game almost without question. If a particular player is unusually quiet (ie, because they're not feeling well), odds are that another player will just fill in. This is only natural, since there is typically only one GM but multiple players. (I'll grant that this dynamic could be different in less common situations, such as a solo game.)

I think this maybe where we're getting tripped up a bit. DMing isn't really "hard" in the sense that it is difficult to understand or grasp. Calculus (at least for me) is hard. DMing isn't so much hard as just a lot more work than playing. And, there really isn't any way around that in D&D. No matter what you do, it's going to be more work for the DM to run a game than it is for the player. Has to be. Even if I'm running a campaign in a box style Adventure Path module, there's ALWAYS stuff that needs to be done.

Heck, even if I'm running that AP over Fantasy Grounds where everything is coded in by someone else, and all I have to do is run it, I still need to read the bloody thing and understand how it all fits together. And, then, over the course of the campaign, adjust bits and pieces as the campaign progresses. It's always going to be more work. That's unavoidable.

Now, on the plus side, there ARE things like Fantasy Grounds which automate so much of the scut work of adventure design. No more faffing about with stat blocks and whatnot, you can drag and drop so much. To the point where my prep has become very, very easy compared to years and editions past. But, in any case, it's STILL more work than just being a player.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I don't know if I'd say more important, but the role of the GM is definitely more challenging (and less replaceable) than the role of the Player. I enjoy playing as both, and I put in more work than the average player in our local scene as a Player (helping keep things on track, reminding other players of what's happening, keeping notes), but it's still significantly less mental load than when I'm GMing, even when I'm running the game entirely on improv in response to player decisions (which is a skill that most new GMs haven't had the experience to learn).

The GM takes on significantly more responsibilities than the players do by the rules of the game and by the standards of most tables. Almost every tabletop RPG I've read the rules for has placed the burden of managing the entire table's expectations (both pregame and in-game) alongside adjucating rules disputes solely on the shoulders of the GM. Even if that comes naturally to you (alongside the improv skills, memory retention, and understanding of story structure that hallmarks quality GMing), pretending that it's not more of an investment or challenge than being a player feels silly.

I always thank and appreciate the people who run games for me, because I know from personal experience that GMing can be an exhausting experience, much more so than merely engaging at the table as a player. When you go to a house party, the host isn't "more important" than the guests, but they still deserve appreciation for the work they put in to throwing and managing the party, even if the entire experience was easy for them.

 

[macd21]

To me most of this sounds like choices that people are making that make things harder.

A DM chooses to keep copious notes. Players choose to turn their brains off when playing. Or choose to not pitch in to help the game.

These are exactly the kinds of things that I’m talking about that can be changed and make the game easier for the DM.

What you consider choices are what other people consider inherent elements of playing an RPG. If I take copious notes as a DM, it’s because I want/need those notes. Eliminating them from the game will reduce my enjoyment of the game, not make it easier. A lot of people play RPGs because the can ‘turn their brains off,’ ask them to do a lot of work and it stops being fun and turns into a chore.

You keep insisting that DMing is easy and that more people would do it, if only we changed how we play games. But we play games the way we do because it’s enjoyable this way. Change all that and the game becomes less enjoyable.

The reason the DM is the most important person at the table is because not everyone likes DMing. Some people find the work involved enjoyable, others do not. Some people get a kick out of running a game, others do not. Even if you reduced the workload, you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in DMs, because most players just don’t want to DM.

 

[Imaculata]

I do think the DM has the most important role at the table. A good or bad DM can make or break the game. Whereas one or two bad players can still make for a great experience, as long as the DM is good. The DM also has the most work with running and prepping the game.

 

[Hussar]

What you consider choices are what other people consider inherent elements of playing an RPG. If I take copious notes as a DM, it’s because I want/need those notes. Eliminating them from the game will reduce my enjoyment of the game, not make it easier. A lot of people play RPGs because the can ‘turn their brains off,’ ask them to do a lot of work and it stops being fun and turns into a chore.

Need =/= enjoy. Having players that take that work load off of the DM can increase the DM's enjoyment simply by virtue of reducing the DM's work load. Now, if the DM is enjoying note taking, then, fair enough. But, not everyone enjoys note taking but, most people do agree that campaigns do require a fair degree of note making.

Additionally, a player who sits at the table to "turn their brains off" is basically just a waste of space. They are passive consumers who contribute nothing to the game that you couldn't get from an automated die roller. Having just had a player exactly like this leave our group, I can say that a player who is nothing but a passive consumer is one of the worst kinds of players. They contribute so little to the game that they may as well not even be sitting there.

If you are a player like this, a player who just wants to "turn his or her brain off", quit expecting other people to entertain you. Get off your lazy backside and actually contribute to the game or step away from the table and let someone else play who actually contributes to the game.

I have so little patience for this kind of player anymore. They just suck all the air out of the room.

You keep insisting that DMing is easy and that more people would do it, if only we changed how we play games. But we play games the way we do because it’s enjoyable this way. Change all that and the game becomes less enjoyable.

That's not necessarily true. Just because someone has never run a game, it doesn't follow that if that person were to run a game or two, they would suddenly enjoy the game less. It's just as easily true that they might find the experience more enjoyable since they are no longer just passive consumers but actual, active, contributing members of the group.

The reason the DM is the most important person at the table is because not everyone likes DMing. Some people find the work involved enjoyable, others do not. Some people get a kick out of running a game, others do not. Even if you reduced the workload, you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in DMs, because most players just don’t want to DM.

Not sure that's true. I certainly saw a huge uptick people willing to run games in 4e where DMing was so much easier than in earlier editions. Given the MASSIVE growth of the hobby in the 5e era, the notion that "most" players just don't want to DM can't be true. Someone is running all those new games.

Then again, I'm fortunate in that our group is full of people who run games. Makes those who just want to play stand out so much worse to be honest because it becomes so blindingly obvious that the "passive consumer" players aren't driving anything and the campaigns inevitably revolve around the active players, all of whom have DMing experience.

 

[macd21]

The idea that a player is just a ‘passive consumer’ because he doesn’t want to run games is ridiculous. A player who ‘turns his brain off’ at the table is still contributing to the game.

As for who is running those 5ed games: new DMs, just as there’s new players. With every new batch of gamers introduced to the hobby, there’ll be a certain number who enjoy DMing - it’s just that they’re a minority.