Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Maxperson]

What if a player consistently does more in session than the dm?

Then that player should DM.

Edit: Or really, that player IS DM, because that player is playing all the NPCs, the monsters, etc. Moving the story forward does not mean doing more than the DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then that player should DM.

Then I think I’ve proved my point.

Now I can get behind the idea that the DM is typically the most important - just not always so.

 

[Maxperson]

Then I think I’ve proved my point.

Now I can get behind the idea that the DM is typically the most important - just not always so.

The issue you are having is that these roles are not a snapshot. They encompass the entire campaign. If you have to go to an aberrant game where the player is somehow doing more in the game than the DM, you've just proven that the DM is the most important role in general. Having to resort to exceptions just proves the rule.

Edit: And by more important, I mean first among equals.

 

[Imaro]

So, then, you agree GMing isn't that hard and having a nentor is just helping, like with anything else? Like, say, being a player?

I think the real question is whether it's as hard or harder than just playing (since this is the alternative to participate in the game)... My thoughts are for the lion share of ttrpg games out there it is

I also notice, though I could be wrong in my interpretation, that you seem to be inferring that only a minimum bar achievement in GM'ing is necessary and I find a few things wrong with this...

1. If that is the bar and the GM consistently stays at that bar... he probably won't have a game for very long.
2. It's still MUCH easier to attain the minimum bar for playing a TTRPG than running it.
3. You seem to assume that your method of running games (I'd be interested in seeing you lay this method out in actual concrete terms as opposed to just countering individual points) will be easier for a GM when in fact there seem to be hints that it probably won't be... or at least only for specific DM's. As an example your method seems to rely on alot of improv, but that's a skill not all new DM's may be good at or even have (again why I'd like to see this "easy" method laid out in concrete format).

 

[Imaro]

What if a player consistently does more in session than the dm?

Could you give an example of this? Because unless he's taken on a co-GM role or something similar I'd be curious as to an actual example of what this might look (i.e. a player consistently doing more in session than a DM...)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think such a broad definition of gatekeeping is a useful one. Risk is a more complicated boardgame than Sorry. Are the makers of Risk guilty of gatekeeping, or is their game just different from Sorry?

IMO, gatekeeping is when people try to keep other people out of a particular group. The key word there is TRY. The gatekeeper needs to be attempting to make gatekeeping happen, whether through action or inaction.

I don't think that's the general case. Obviously, we can point to specific cases that ARE gatekeeping. For example, this hobby has traditionally been pretty bad with gatekeeping women. However, I don't think the same is true of GMs in general.

Not having the advice that you (Ovinomancer) would give new GMs in the DMG is not gatekeeping IMO. Maybe you're right, and your advice is the perfect solution to onboarding new GMs. Nonetheless, disagreeing with that advice isn't gatekeeping, unless the intent driving it is to prevent new GMs. A different GM might believe that his advice is much more practical and useful to new GMs. Even if he is wrong and you are right, it still isn't gatekeeping, because he too wants to make the new GMs job easier. Confounding the situation further is that not all advice works for everyone. Some people will have an easier time with one approach than another. We could maybe include all approaches and all the advice in the DMG, but odds are it would be so large that no one would be able to lift it.

As for ENWorld, that was an example of GMs not hording their knowledge. I wouldn't recommend it to a new GM either.

A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult. You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements. It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.

As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity. There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition. And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry. If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have. But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing. That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping. Is it intentional? No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway. Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Birdwatching is better with a mentor too. It's still too hard for me to bother with. Same goes for knitting. GMing is hard, but I still bother with it even though I had no mentor.

It comes down to what people like to do. Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding. Those get traction. Things that are hard and not found to be personally rewarding do not.

I think you're defining "hard" by "things I don't really want to do."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Couldn't this just be about how different people learn in different ways? For some people it's easier to process information from a text for others it's easier to learn in a hands on environment...

This is an interesting point, but it's kind of orthogonal to the idea that GMing is hard, in and of itself, and not hard due to how you learn it. Still, it's a very keen observation.

 

[Nagol]

A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult. You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements. It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.

As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity. There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition. And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry. If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have. But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing. That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping. Is it intentional? No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway. Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.

OK here's a very specific case that is true in any game I've seen that has a GM:
Adjudication of an action and consequence is harder than declaring that action.

 

[Imaro]

It comes down to what people like to do. Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding. Those get traction. Things that are hard and not found to be personally rewarding do not.

I think this is a gigantic piece that gets overlooked in these discussions... No amount of making it hard or easy is going to get someone who doesn't want to DM to DM. And really I find it hard to believe that there are hordes of DM's who think they would enjoy it but are just not giving it a try because...reasons.

Honestly I think more people are always going to want to play out the star(s) in the game as opposed to creating & running behind the scenes machinery. The fact that playing is easier than running is just icing on the cake for many. I mean what's the ratio of people who learn game design/programming to those that choose to play videogames, and while yes... it's on a much larger scale, it's also a very similar situation.