Is the DM the most important person at the table

[hawkeyefan]

Has anyone actually stated this, because I thought this was brought up in the context of GM'ing being harder than playing...

I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful."

At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier.

I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful."

At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier.

I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.

I ask because unless you can make GM'ing as easy or easier than playing I'm not sure you would entice people who play but are choosing not to GM to actually GM. It also makes me wonder as to the practical application of some of these suggestions for a new GM who has to change the entire playstyle of their group in order to run...

 

[Nagol]

I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful."

At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier.

I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.

It can be made different, by making the game play differently. I'm not sure that that different way is easier. I find it much more exhausting and difficult to contemplate doing long-term compared to spending prep time.

The game is also different. It's like saying making Nanaimo bars is too hard so let's make chocolate cookies instead. They might be easier to bake and still tasty, but they aren't Nanaimo bars.

 

[Lanefan]

Does it kill your enjoyment if you are the DM?

Not at all, as when I'm DM I'm filling a different role at the table: that of referee, setting and background describer, and NPC wrangler.

And when role-playing the NPCs I have to keep in mind what they'd know as opposed to what I know, I see this as an annoying but unavoidable hazard of the DM trade. But as a player I shouldn't ever have to worry about this.

And, is the price worth the DM no longer having to spend 99% of the effort to keep the campaign going? IOW, is your separation of character and player knowledge so valuable that it's more important than the DM's time?

While 99% is simply hyperbole on your part, both as DM and player I see managing the campaign* to be almost exclusively the DM's role, and this is inevitably going to lead to more expended effort than that of any player.

The players' role is to reliably show up to the games, consistently contribute while at the table, and add to the entertainment of all. If they bring beer - bonus! Even better if the players' contributions at the table allow the DM to largely get out of the way (other than any required refereeing) and let the session run itself; this is why I don't mind if they get into in-character arguments or hijinks or whatever, as it means they're running the show and all I need do is watch.

* - this includes setting details, adventure details, keeping records, scheduling the games, (usually) hosting, etc.

And, "trying to gain an advantage" is most certainly NOT part of a player's duty. At least, not at my table.

No-one's ever found and exploited a rules loophole in your game(s)? Or devised and used a truly broken combination? Or advocated for the easing of a restriction or the addition of something PC-beneficial?

No wonder your DM workload is so light.

 

[Lanefan]

If it's half-remembered, how are the players going to know that what the GM says now differs from the other (forgotten) half?

You'd be surprised.

Also, nailing things down a bit firmer avoids arguments later when - as is otherwise inevitable - memories conflict. Had one too many of those over the years.

I seriously think this concern is being exaggerated. Yes, notes are generally necessary to support continuity. But they don't have to be extensive.

At the table at the time, I agree. Oftentimes my notes for a session - other than some fill-in-the-blank stuff noting what they fought or did and who was involved, the game date and session number, and notes on treasure found - might be just one or two lines; sometimes even just one or two words!

Reason for this is I find note-taking in the moment tends to throw my concentration off.

But, either immediately after the session or first thing the next day I'll take those scratch notes and my memory and put together the online game log for that session...which is often many lines!

Those are done from memory, not notes, and their main purpose is to provide material for reflection on/discussion of actual play. That's why they're not just records of the fiction, which would normally be quite a bit briefer.

Ah. And here I thought all this time you'd been cutting and pasting from your game logs.

 

[prabe]

I mean, I can tell people how I never spend more than 10+ minutes in prep time, and how I've incorporated various systems into my 5e, but I doubt it will be helpful to people who aren't me and don't play like I do.

I'd be curious, if only because I wonder what it is you're doing wrong I often find others' methods interesting, even if I'm unlikely to adopt them myself.

 

[Lanefan]

I think I'm missing something here. Misremembering the score is a metaphor - what is it a metaphor for?

If everyone at the table accepts that Bernard, who was introduced as a gnome, is actually a halfling, what's the problem? If someone remembers part way through the scenario that something got mixed up that's a different story obviously, but how big a risk is that?

The problem arises when the DM and one player remember Bernard was a Gnome, two other players insist he was a Hobbit, and the remaining player has his name mixed up with that of the Part-Orc bouncer who threw the party out of the pub and doesn't remember dealing with either a Gnome or a Hobbit.

Which matters if Bernard has somehow become relevant again, as one's general approach to dealing with a Gnome might be considerably different to one's general approach (bring food!) to dealing with a Hobbit.

How often does it happen?

Back before we started keeping detailed game logs, just about every frikkin' session.

The PCs have bribed NPCs, tricked them and in some cases swindled them. But from my point of view most of those NPCs are done - I've got no interest in re-introducing them into the game, and the players don't seem to either.

Of course the players don't! They've already gotten away with their tricks and swindles, why ever would they want to see those people again?

If those people come up again it'll be because you brought them back into play - maybe looking for the swindlers...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

So I've been told. Sometimes repeatedly. Often by people that want a Barboard? Starlord? Farnord? Carsword?

You can only have a Starlord if I get a Groot!

Someone else can have the raccoon.