Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Maxperson]

As far as that goes, no, I'm in total agreement with you. I don't believe that it is particularly useful to frame the notion of the DM being more "important " at all. Right with you there.

I'm not even totally convinced that the role is "harder". More work, sure, but, not really "harder" in the sense that it takes some sort of special training or skill to do. And, if we reduce the workload, then, it's not really any harder in the sense of taking more time either.

More work automatically equals harder. One definition of hard is "with a great deal of work." So while DMing might not be hard(doesn't take a great deal of work). It is harder(requires more work) than playing.

 

[atanakar]

I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a hobby. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.

Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a hobby. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.

Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.

Effort is work, whether you view it as "work" or not. I don't view it as work in the sense of doing a job, either, but it is work as in you are working to accomplish something.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a hobby. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.

Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.

As I see it, DMing doesn't mean that you're more important than a player, but it does (normally) mean you have both different and greater rights as well as responsibilities, than the players.

In most games, the DM is empowered to veto something a player proposes, for example.

The DM is also typically responsible for running the game. Yes, you can delegate, but it is ultimately your responsibility.

Some people like rights and responsibilities. Some don't. For example, not everyone wants to be the boss at work, despite that it usually includes added compensation (unlike DMing). Not that I'm suggesting the DM is the boss, I'm simply illustrating that not everyone wants that.

Does that mean it is harder? That really depends on your definition of harder. Those who love doing that kind of work and don't mind having the rights and responsibilities might not see it as harder. Those who don't enjoy those things or feel that the rights/responsibilities are a burden will almost certainly view DMing as significantly harder.

 

[Maxperson]

As I see it, DMing doesn't mean that you're more important than a player, but it does (normally) mean you have both different and greater rights as well as responsibilities, than the players.

In most games, the DM is empowered to veto something a player proposes, for example.

The DM is also typically responsible for running the game. Yes, you can delegate, but it is ultimately your responsibility.

That's why I refer to the DM as first among equals.

Does that mean it is harder? That really depends on your definition of harder. Those who love doing that kind of work and don't mind having the rights and responsibilities might not see it as harder. Those who don't enjoy those things or feel that the rights/responsibilities are a burden will almost certainly view DMing as significantly harder.

It's factually harder regardless of how they see it. It's more work and more work = harder. It's just something that is still easy for them to do, so they misperceive it.

 

[pemerton]

I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to.

The reason it took eight hours of table time, and the reason I ended up doing more than half the work, even though there were three others at the table, is because ...well ... it didn't feel as though anyone else at the table was coming up with much, if anything, and what they did come up with was ... not especially coherent. Even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed, and my willing suspension of disbelief was strained from the get-go.

I read this and was gob-smacked. I wrote a longer post in response to it but my computer crashed and ate it. And I know you've discussed this already with @Ovinomancer and so another long response probably contributes nothing to humanity.

But I really was gob-smacked. I've never run Dresden Files but I've read the setting-creation stuff in Fate Core which I would assume is fairly siimllar; and I've done a lot of collaborative setting and situation creation using other systems (eg Burning Wheel; Classic Traveller; 4e D&D; Cortex+ Heroic; Cthulhu Dark). I can't fathom how it would take 8 hours, whether or not it was being done by one or four people.

Your remarks that it really felt more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to and that even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed give me the impression that you and your group were substituting prep for what the system assumes will be play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The OP is about whether the GM's role is the most important, not about methods of making the GMs job easier. If it were the latter, then I would agree that I am not contributing. However, given the actual topic of the thread, and how difficulty of GMing arguably pertains to it, I would say that I am contributing to the thread. Although, it might be fair to say that at this point we're both beating a dead horse...

Honestly, the OP was more about everyone needing to contribute, and about how one person's effort shouldn't really place them above the others in importance, I think. It's not declared outright, but the main thrust of the OP was more about the idea that the game is a group effort and everyone should contribute.

The OP acknowledges that the DM likely has to put in more effort....but the point seems to be that the additional effort should not afford the DM more "claim" on the game, nor should it free players from putting in some effort, too.

Honestly, the whole "DMing is hard" angle came up mostly because people ignored the context of the OP and instead focused solely on the title of the thread, and they offered their answer that yes, the DM is more important because they are fewer, and that's because DMing is hard.

But looking back at the OP now, these many pages later, and I'd say player input is actually a more important element of the OP than the difficulty of being a DM. Here's the OP below:

Another thread has me thinking about this. On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work. He plans things and runs the game. On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family. Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.

I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table. I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun. This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making. Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot. Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.

Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.

 

[aco175]

Thank you @hawkeyefan I think I was trying to feel out if people on the site was thinking the DM was more entitled or felt more controlling over the other players in their game. The word important was discussed and maybe that was not the best choice since everyone seems to agree that everyone is there to have fun and even though the DM does more work for the group, he is not more important in that sense.

I think I was references some other threads that were coming up describing how some people drop players for not getting into their game or the "my game, my rules" mentality mostly when describing their homebrew and their changes to make their world. I was getting the impression that some were feeling superior since they crafted their world and while others can come play in it, it is mine and I control how and what you can play.

I was not sure how the thread would pan out, but mostly how I hoped, thank you

 

[prabe]

I read this and was gob-smacked. I wrote a longer post in response to it but my computer crashed and ate it. And I know you've discussed this already with @Ovinomancer and so another long response probably contributes nothing to humanity.

Maybe a discussion will be more pleasant than you think.

But I really was gob-smacked. I've never run Dresden Files but I've read the setting-creation stuff in Fate Core which I would assume is fairly siimllar; and I've done a lot of collaborative setting and situation creation using other systems (eg Burning Wheel; Classic Traveller; 4e D&D; Cortex+ Heroic; Cthulhu Dark). I can't fathom how it would take 8 hours, whether or not it was being done by one or four people.

I was probably at least as surprised as you are. I'd participated in some collaborative setting-building in other games, and it had always been part of the first session, and it had worked, and it had been fun. Generally, everyone provided some limited number of ideas and the GM figured out how to incorporate them into something at least more or less consistent.

I'm looking at the Game Creation Worksheet in the Fate Core Book, and it's pretty simple. One page. Two spaces for Issues, six spaces for faces and places, each with at least one issue or aspect, some spaces to note where the game is going to fall on some mechanical spectra, and a little space for stunts and extras.

The equivalent in the Dresden Files game is three pages. One page is the high-level stuff (which we didn't use, IIRC), which has three spaces for themes/threats, each with ideas, aspects, and faces; spaces for the status quo; and spaces for big movers and shakers (maybe we did use this; I'd have to find my notes). The second page has nine spaces for locations; each location has spaces for a name and short descriptions, whether it's connected to a theme or a threat, an idea and an aspect and a face. The third page is like the locations page, but for people, with spaces for each for name, what they're the face of, high concepts and motivations, and relationships. It's a lot more to fill in, and it took us two sessions to get to the point where we were willing to go with what we had. To be fair, there was some broader setting-building stuff before that.

Your remarks that it really felt more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to and that even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed give me the impression that you and your group were substituting prep for what the system assumes will be play.

I suspect that, at least for the Dresden Files game, the expectation is that prep (at least setting-building) will be a form or a part of play. Certainly all that work at the beginning seemed like front-loading, and running based on what the players/characters were doing meant a lot more remembering what had come before, and keeping track of what might be happening before the players/characters inserted themselves, seemed like at least as much work as what I'm doing now for D&D, and in some ways more than what I had done for Mutants and Masterminds (the two games I ran closest to running Fate).

As for the setting seeming disjointed, I think maybe that's a matter of it being easier for one mind to be coherent/internally consistent than four minds. Certainly there were some players who wanted things I might not have chosen for a setting, had I been the only one choosing.

 

[Fenris-77]

The fact that the players might want something you don't is kind of point isnt it? You leverage player engagement by allowing them include some elements in the setting they specifically want to engage with? Obviously it still needs to be collaborative, but by itself it doesnt sound bad. I'm sure there is some detail and nuance I'm missing hough.