Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Sadras]

The role is more central to the game, so in that sense it is important....but a game can't happen without players, either.

No one is arguing that the game cannot happen with out players.
The question is, Is the DM the most important at the table

Let us take a RPG table of 5
DM, Player A, Player B, Player C, Player D

Using Basic Maths
If you lose 1 or 2 or 3 players, the game can still continue, but the game does not continue if you lose the DM. Thus the DM > x players, where (x+1) players are the number of players at a table.

My comments in this thread aren't aimed so much at diminishing the importance of the GM to a game so much as pointing out that it's not significantly harder to GM.

That is subjective, perhaps even game dependent and does not take into account all the various types of players (casual, passive or otherwise). Furthermore, more often than not, the GM is the one usually rated on the success of the session not the player. It is true your statement speaks nothing about GMing well, only GMing - but this as well as learning enough of the rules as well as in most cases prep work required leads the perception that GM is significantly harder. I'd say the learning curve for being a GM is much more than that of a player.

EDIT: Are there exceptions to the rule, friendlier-GMing games, sure, but I'm not convinced it is helpful or meaningful referring to those games in this conversation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.

IME whether the GM leaving breaks the group depends a lot on the game and how much of a load the game places on the DM. A D&D group almost alway breaks, a WoD group normally breaks - and a Fate, Apocalypse World, or similar group normally has three other people lining up to GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one is arguing that the game cannot happen with out players.
The question is, Is the DM the most important at the table

Let us take a RPG table of 5
DM, Player A, Player B, Player C, Player D

Using Basic Maths
If you lose 1 or 2 or 3 players, the game can still continue, but the game does not continue if you lose the DM. Thus the DM > x players, where (x+1) players are the number of players at a table.

But what does "important at the table" mean? Are we talking "important to this specific instance of game" or "important to this specific gaming group"? What does "table" equal?

In my weekly game, a few weeks ago the GM didn't show up. We didn't play Star Trek that night....instead we played a one shot of Mothership.

So, for our table....if by table we mean gaming group.....the answer was clearly "No, because we have other games and GMs."

Ultimately, the answer to this question is just as subjective as to the one about difficulty.

That is subjective, perhaps even game dependent and does not take into account all the various types of players (casual, passive or otherwise). Furthermore, more often than not, the GM is the one usually rated on the success of the session not the player. It is true your statement speaks nothing about GMing well, only GMing - but this as well as learning enough of the rules as well as in most cases prep work required leads the perception that GM is significantly harder. I'd say the learning curve for being a GM is much more than that of a player.

EDIT: Are there exceptions to the rule, friendlier-GMing games, sure, but I'm not convinced it is helpful or meaningful referring to those games in this conversation.

Yes, this is subjective for sure. Plenty of people think GMing is super hard. That's fine. I don't think that it must be so, and I hope that anyone who's considering trying it out and sees a discussion like this will see more than one opinion on the matter.

I do think that there are techniques and practices that are perhaps present in other games that can help lessen the burden on a DM in D&D, or a GM in any other game. Different things work for different people, so I think including those techniques can be quite helpful.

For instance, in my recently resumed 5E campaign, we've adopted the initiative method used in Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. Basically, you alternate turns in combat for each side, deciding who specifcally goes on any turn until all have acted. This is a little easier to track, but also adds all kinds of tactical decisions for the players (and with the DM for the enemies) that we find promote teamwork in a way that linear initiative doesn't quite do.

 

[Nebulous]

IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.

Of the five people I game with none of them could run a game, or would want to. Four are extremely casual and the power gamer would make a god awful mess of it if he tried. My long term 5 year game was at another guy's house over an hour away. I kept all my stuff in his closet. For years, because it was too much hassle shuffling it back and forth every week. But he would cancel all the time, usually day of, and ruin the game for the rest of us.

 

[Nebulous]

For instance, in my recently resumed 5E campaign, we've adopted the initiative method used in Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. Basically, you alternate turns in combat for each side, deciding who specifcally goes on any turn until all have acted. This is a little easier to track, but also adds all kinds of tactical decisions for the players (and with the DM for the enemies) that we find promote teamwork in a way that linear initiative doesn't quite do.

That's what I want, tactical aspect to initiative. I really hate the default system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's what I want, tactical aspect to initiative. I really hate the default system.

We've found this new way of doing it to be a bit simpler (not drastically so) but definitely more meaningful. It also involves each player on every turn as they have to decide which character will go when it's the PCs' turn to go. It allows them to use some teamwork in the form of spells and other abilities that can be used earlier in a round that will benefit the actions taken later in the round.

So far, it's been mostly beneficial in that it engages them more, folks are less likely to be distracted when they have to discuss and decide exactly who will go.

The only thing that's a little sticky is duration of spells and the like. If one character goes first in one round and casts a spell that lasts till the end of his next turn, going last in the next round extends that spell duration. So this may be a concern for some, but we actually find it kind of interesting.

 

[Fenris-77]

The example of one DM and four players misses the point IMO. Setting aside solo play for the moment, the basic, simplest unit of 'play' for almost any RPG is GM/player - you need one of each. Sure, you can add more players but that doesn't change the dualistic nature of the basic unit of exchange. So if the basic unit is 1-1 I think it's tough to make an argument that one in more important than the other.

Obviously you can get immensely granular about the difference between the two roles, and spend a lot of time talking about the compared difficulty or workload, but neither of those really addresses the issue of importance. It doesn't even matter what system we're talking about, since that indexes difficulty, not importance. I would agree that DMing is, in many cases, more work that playing, at least when it comes to prep and time spent, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to 'importance'.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Turning my brain off and being a passive consumer are most assuredly not the same thing.

I turn my brain off as a player (most of the time, and depending on specific PC I'm running) but that in no way means my contribution is any the less.

It does mean there's times when my PC might do things without my fully thinking them through, which is why I usually make Wisdom the dump stat.

Never mind I almost invariably am or become the party treasurer in any game I play in.

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.

If 5 people new to the hobby want to play and one of them becomes the DM, that's still only a 20-80% ratio.

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.

We have different experiences.

Some of our most active and involved players are just that: players, who've maybe DMed one or two sessions in their decades-long gaming careers before deciding DMing wasn't for them.

 

[Sadras]

The example of one DM and four players misses the point IMO. Setting aside solo play for the moment, the basic, simplest unit of 'play' for almost any RPG is GM/player - you need one of each. Sure, you can add more players but that doesn't change the dualistic nature of the basic unit of exchange. So if the basic unit is 1-1 I think it's tough to make an argument that one in more important than the other.

And yet the question is Is the DM the most important person at the table not Is the DM more important than all the players. Out of those 5 people at the table, who can you not do without? Pick one.

 

[Sadras]

But what does "important at the table" mean? Are we talking "important to this specific instance of game" or "important to this specific gaming group"? What does "table" equal?

In my weekly game, a few weeks ago the GM didn't show up. We didn't play Star Trek that night....instead we played a one shot of Mothership.

So, for our table....if by table we mean gaming group.....the answer was clearly "No, because we have other games and GMs."

Ultimately, the answer to this question is just as subjective as to the one about difficulty.

I believe @MGibster answers this upthread

This thread isn't about how important the GM is in the grand scheme of the greater cosmos. It doesn't matter if the absence of the GM means the players will find something else to hold their interest. Maybe they'll go to a movie, finally take the time to learn ballroom dancing, or even start another game with a different GM. The point is that particular game does not happen in the absence of the GM. We can often continue to play the game in the absence of one or two players, but we cannot continue the game in the absence of the GM.