Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Hussar]

/note - still swimming upthread and responding as I go.

Agreed! I made similar points way back in an early response to GameOgre's request. The way to have a low-prep 5e game is to change the nature of the game and move it from player discovery to table discovery (play to see what happens).

Personally, I don't use D&D when I want to play that style of game.

That's not true though. Is it really "changing the nature of the game" to go from exploring 100% of the game to exploring 80%? After all, you're not supposed to know what the other players are creating. There's no reason they would tell you and no reason for you to tell them and every reason not to. The notion that we're radically altering the nature of the game just because one player knows a bit more than the other at the table (and nothing that that player "knows" is actually fact since the DM can and should change details before play) is a bit of an over reaction I think.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?

Well it varies by game, for sure, but generally speaking players should declare actions for their characters and the GM should help adjudicate those actions, and the response to this actions as well, including the actions of NPCs.

That's pretty basic, I know, but it's hard to go much further without talking about a specific game.

However, I'll add that even in a more traditional approach such as that of D&D, I expect a lot of input from the players on the game world. Not as much as the DM will have, but more than what the game expects as presented.

Generally, I take details of the fiction that I think are relevant or interesting and I craft a situation or scenario for the PCs to deal with. They then decide how to do so, declare their actions, and I adjudicate.

EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing. Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.

The hang up on which is more difficult is just something I don't think I can comment on any further.

 

[Fenris-77]

Do some experienced RGPers hold the opinion that they know better than some newb what that newb wants? Of course they do. If we all don't know or have played with at least one of those people I'd be very surprised. You say "I really enjoyed Dragon Heist, I thought it was was awesome!" and they reply, "well, Blades in the Dark is the game you want there, not D&D". Knowing a lot of stuff about gaming will always produce that guy who uses his mass of knowledge to gatekeep in various ways, or index his place in the FLGS pecking order with the occasional bravura showing of obscured TTRPG lore. That's very much a thing, and it's also very much a thing online, and also a thing on this very forum. I have been that guy before, I know I have, sometimes on purpose and sometimes not, but I've been there. I don't see who benefits from pretending this kind of behavior doesn't happen. It's mostly not a good thing.

Suggesting things is great, telling people they only enjoy X because they haven't tried Y isn't.

 

[Hussar]

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...

Again, I'm not sure we can draw a line at any particular point without any data? Does DMing need to be "as easy or easier" than playing before someone will step up? Or, does it just need to be a bit easier than it is right now? I dunno. I have no idea. My point of throwing out options is that if we gave these options to people playing D&D who may or may not have even considered that there are alternatives to the DM doing 99% of the work, then perhaps it might help.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans. Then you are wrong. If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.

I don't think multithreaded programming is hard. Most programmers disagree and rightfully so. I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion. Most people don't find attending a party difficult. For me it is excruciating. I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.

Many people think differential calculus is hard. I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it. It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard. Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.

Yup, different people have different opinions on what's hard. We've gotten to the point in the conversation where we're explaining to each other what opinions are.

This is why I don't feel the desire to debate what's harder DMing or playing, and instead want to focus on methods to make DMing easier.

Do you have any ideas on that?

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.

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.

If the players' role is to show up and play and nothing else, how is my 99% of the workload on the DM hyperbole? If the DM is in charge of tracking all the information both before and after play, designing every single thing that the players will play through, and everything else, how is that not 99%? What per cent would you call it?

And, well, you have to remember, my entire group, for a long time, consists of multiple DM's. Exploiting rules loopholes and whatnot is the sign of bad play and, well, since we've all been DM's, no one wants to do it to another DM. One of the benefits of playing with folks with DMing experience. Any and all problems can be traced almost exclusively to the pure players who refuse to invest the time to run a game.

If your group is nothing but pure players, I can see why your DM workload is so heavy and why trust is so hard to come by.

 

[Hussar]

Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?

EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing. Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.

Note, you didn't ask this to me, but, if I may...

That's going to vary considerably from table to table and game to game. There are none AFAIK, that are demanded by the system. The share of responsibilities are usually divided up in the rules as a general guideline, but, are certainly not required.

I wonder how much of this disagreement has to do with personal experience. For me, my formative years of gaming, back in the 80's, was that everyone DM'd. The notion that groups have one DM is pretty much completely alien to me. Even back in the first days, we would take turns DMing, with the DM's character fading into the background as an NPC for the duration of that adventure. Then, as that adventure was winding up to a conclusion, someone else would step up and offer to run the next adventure.

So, even way back then, our DMing duties were never terribly difficult. You had to come up with an adventure every few months and that was about it. It worked for us.

Even today, in my current group, we run two campaigns concurrently on alternating weeks. Different characters this time around, but, it gives the DM 2 weeks to prepare for every session. And, if someone gets buried with work, one or the other DM steps up and runs their game that week. Easy peasy.

So, division of responsibilities? That's not something I can honestly answer. It changes from group to group, game to game and heck, possibly even week to week.

 

[Hussar]

There are plenty of games that offer alternate paradigms.

There are plenty of games that offer alternate paradigms, and still have fantasy.

There are plenty of games that offer alternate paradigms, and still have fantasy and are very D&D-esque.

...perhaps the problem isn't the presence of absence of alternate paradigms.

...in the alternative, perhaps the problem is defining it as a problem in need of a solution?

I would argue the problem is that the alternatives are never given any air time in the broader hobby. Thousands of pages of Dragon Magazine articles telling DM's they have to do 99% of the work and virtually no suggestions on how to reduce that workload or spread it around.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

/note - still swimming upthread and responding as I go.



That's not true though. Is it really "changing the nature of the game" to go from exploring 100% of the game to exploring 80%? After all, you're not supposed to know what the other players are creating. There's no reason they would tell you and no reason for you to tell them and every reason not to. The notion that we're radically altering the nature of the game just because one player knows a bit more than the other at the table (and nothing that that player "knows" is actually fact since the DM can and should change details before play) is a bit of an over reaction I think.

I was referring to the on-the-fly creation paradigm more commonly seen in Dungeonworld, much FATE, and Burning Wheel. I contend on-the-fly creation and adjudication changes the nature of the game when compared to previously-prepared and adjudicated play even if we discount the game-specific play alterations such as snowballing in Dungeonworld and Belief/Instinct/Trait of Burning Wheel..

If we're discussing something more like the Dirty Dungeon concept, I have other serious concerns with that outside of the nature of play.