Is the DM the most important person at the table

[FrogReaver]

In my experience it’s very much the case.

There is a difference between hard and requiring more time.

And if the DM leaves, no more game. If you’re lucky, you might have a player who can step up, but it’s far from a given.

If the DM leaves then one of the players becomes the DM. I'm not sure why you think that requires luck or will not be the typical case.

 

[Stoutstien]

I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good. I'm not sure that's the case.

I think they do support each other more than most would admit.
generally GMs have to be equally active and reactive in their decision making. By nature of having more control over the game will make more mistakes which some people don't like. Most gaming communities i have seen have a huge discrepancy of player/GM ratio which means most people don't enjoy GMing or avoid it for other reasons.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good. I'm not sure that's the case.

You might be right about them doing it well.

However, there's a very real difference between a player playing well and a DM running well, as they are different skill sets.

Because the GM sets the tone of the game, it's much harder to have a fun game with an unskilled GM than with unskilled players, at least IME.

Skilled players with an unskilled GM might be patient and understanding with the GM, but it's almost guaranteed that they would have more fun playing under a skilled GM.

Unskilled players can most definitely still have a great time playing under a skilled GM.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think they do support each other more than most would admit.
generally GMs have to be equally active and reactive in their decision making. By nature of having more control over the game will make more mistakes which some people don't like. Most gaming communities i have seen have a huge discrepancy of player/GM ratio which means most people don't enjoy GMing or avoid it for other reasons.

I would surmise that the community is generally toxic to new DM's. I mean have you seen the threads here when a presumably newer DM asks a question and it comes out that he had made a mistake. Have you seen how players in general react to a new DM's game? Whereas it's easy to be a newer player as there is support from the whole group and from the DM himself

 

[Rikka66]

If the DM leaves then one of the players becomes the DM. I'm not sure why you think that requires luck or will not be the typical case.

In my experience, mostly doesn't happen. And considering it's accepted that there's a shortage of DMs compared to players...

No one's arguing that the DM being more important makes them better. But they do have more jobs at the table, and do more of the prep. And the nature of the role makes them more likely to be the group organizer and caretaker. Everyone is important at the table, and everyone contributes to the group, and it's important that everyone enjoys themselves.

 

[FrogReaver]

You might be right about them doing it well.

However, there's a very real difference between a player playing well and a DM running well, as they are different skill sets.

Because the GM sets the tone of the game, it's much harder to have a fun game with an unskilled GM than with unskilled players, at least IME.

Skilled players with an unskilled GM might be patient and understanding with the GM, but it's almost guaranteed that they would have more fun playing under a skilled GM.

Unskilled players can most definitely still have a great time playing under a skilled GM.

I don't think you take that idea far enough. A single good player providing a bad/new GM buy-in to his story and following the GM's lead is a godsend. It's usually enough to make the bad GM seem like a good GM.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my experience, mostly doesn't happen. And considering it's accepted that there's a shortage of DMs compared to players...

There's nothing stopping any player from DM'ing - except for his fear of the community and fear of failure in general.

No one's arguing that the DM being more important makes them better.

And no one is arguing that anyone is arguing that.

But they do have more jobs at the table,

Probably but I'm not certain what you refer to as jobs?

and do more of the prep.

Sure, though skills can be learned that greatly reduces the amount of prep.

And the nature of the role makes them more likely to be the group organizer and caretaker.

So you mean - the DM typically assumes an additional role that has nothing to do with DM'ing. I believe that but I'm not sure it impacts this discussion at all.

Everyone is important at the table, and everyone contributes to the group, and it's important that everyone enjoys themselves.

Do you believe that a good player can make an otherwise bad DM seem to be a good DM?

 

[Stoutstien]

I would surmise that the community is generally toxic to new DM's. I mean have you seen the threads here when a presumably newer DM asks a question and it comes out that he had made a mistake. Have you seen how players in general react to a new DM's game? Whereas it's easy to be a newer player as there is support from the whole group and from the DM himself

Agreed. Is especially true in this edition which is way more new player-friendly then new GM friendly. Even the DMG is set up for a player's perspective
It takes a long time for an individual GM to find a style that works for them. In my gaming community there's four or five people that are recently looking into starting GMing and they were surprised when I told them the first thing they should do is disregard anything that I tell them that doesn't work for them lol.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think you take that idea far enough. A single good player providing a bad/new GM buy-in to his story and following the GM's lead is a godsend. It's usually enough to make the bad GM seem like a good GM.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed. Is especially true in this edition which is way more new player-friendly then new GM friendly. Even the DMG is set up for a player's perspective
It takes a long time for an individual GM to find a style that works for them. In my gaming community there's four or five people that are recently looking into starting GMing and they were surprised when I told them the first thing they should do is disregard anything that I tell them that doesn't work for them lol.

Yep. Also, whatever the cause, new players are much more tolerated than new DM's. It's probably a factor of relatability. Players can relate to being a new player themselves. They may have never seen a new GM and have no idea what it's like being one.