Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Imaro]

Blades is complex in ways, for sure, but it's mostly in how all the different pieces fit together. I also think that the learning curve with Blades in the Dark mostly seems to come from having to unlearn what D&D and similar games have ingrained in us.

I had one player who was only passing familiar with D&D, and he took to Blades so much faster than my D&D guys did.

Not sure I agree with the unlearning part as my players had no issues with BiTD... It's pretty traditional in it's player side mechanics... of course we are speaking to whether the GM has a higher cognitive, mental, etc. workload than the players In BitD (After running it I still believe they do) not whether it's harder than D&D (I don't think either is "harder" in an objective sense but running them requires different skillsets which may be harder or easier for some to leverage.).

 

[Imaro]

Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?

What are these techniques? And would they do that universally for anyone who leveraged them?

 

[macd21]

I am currently DMing a 5e game for my group. I do not know the rules as well as two of my players. This does not in any way impede me from DMing.

A player knowing the rules better than the DM isn’t the issue. It’s that a DM needs to have a higher familiarity with the rules than is required of a player. There is a far lower level of system mastery required of a 5ed player than 5ed DM. And a DM having more system mastery is more beneficial to the table than a player having it.

 

[prabe]

A player knowing the rules better than the DM isn’t the issue. It’s that a DM needs to have a higher familiarity with the rules than is required of a player. There is a far lower level of system mastery required of a 5ed player than 5ed DM. And a DM having more system mastery is more beneficial to the table than a player having it.

I agree about a player having system mastery not being a problem. I have a player in one of the campaigns I'm running who's probably about as up on the rules as I am, if not more, and I use him as a resource (and he doesn't mind that). When I play, I try to be at least as helpful as he is.

 

[pogre]

Twenty years ago I would have found this question ridiculous. Of course the DM is most important!

However, now that I have an awesome group rolling along in a weekly game again - I will never take good players for granted ever again.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?

There is absolutely room for resources to help DMs (both new and old) improve their game.

That said, finding and using those resources (and avoiding resources that though well-intentioned may be detrimental to your game) is a skill in and of itself.

I’m also skeptical of any claim that X system has made GMing as easy as being a player, and can (should?) be imported into D&D.

 

[billd91]

While gatekeeping is a serious issue, I don't think that most of the things you put forth as gatekeeping are actually gatekeeping. I suspect that by your definition, if I were to do my absolute best to help out a prospective GM, but I gave them bad advice unknowingly (maybe it worked for me but doesn't work for them) that I would be guilty of gatekeeping. Which as far as I'm concerned makes it a useless definition, because literally anything could fall under that scope. A more useful definition of gatekeeping is based on intent. If I do my best to help a newbie, I am not gatekeeping, irrespective of whether I was actually helpful. If I tried to hinder or drive away the newbie I am gatekeeping, regardless of whether or not I am successful.

Technically, I would say that something being harder than another is somewhat gatekept, at least in an structural sense - and that's a far cry from the gatekeeping term we use when we talk about actively trying to keep the unqualified or uninitiated hoi polloi out of the hobby. Equating the two is being unhelpfully pedantic about the term gatekeeping (something we've seen on these boards before).

The big question here is whether or not Ovinomancer is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two - the fairly uncontroversial fact that GMing a game requires a bit more investment in effort than playing (and thus is harder) and thus suffers from a certain amount of inevitable, structural gatekeeping or that identifying the role of GM as being more difficult than being a player is performing some sort of unwelcome community gatekeeping. I hope he's just being unhelpfully pedantic.

 

[billd91]

The question that's been nagging me the whole thread, given the fairly obvious fact that a GM is in a fairly important position relative to any single one of the players in the game, what does this observation get us? Is there a further point to this topic?
So, the GM is the most important individual at the table. And...?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Technically, I would say that something being harder than another is somewhat gatekept, at least in an structural sense - and that's a far cry from the gatekeeping term we use when we talk about actively trying to keep the unqualified or uninitiated hoi polloi out of the hobby. Equating the two is being unhelpfully pedantic about the term gatekeeping (something we've seen on these boards before).

The big question here is whether or not Ovinomancer is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two - the fairly uncontroversial fact that GMing a game requires a bit more investment in effort than playing (and thus is harder) and thus suffers from a certain amount of inevitable, structural gatekeeping or that identifying the role of GM as being more difficult than being a player is performing some sort of unwelcome community gatekeeping. I hope he's just being unhelpfully pedantic.

I hadn't considered the term in the structural sense, but I also don't feel like that's what's being discussed. We already have versions of D&D that are less 'gatekept' in this respect, from the starter sets. Those are designed to ease entry into DMing. I suppose that one could argue that they don't go far enough, but when is enough sufficient to not be 'gatekeeping'? There's always going to be some minimal barrier to entry. I mean, given that the rules are in books, you arguably need some basic proficiency with reading (or at least someone to read them to you). I wouldn't call that gatekeeping (in any meaningful sense of the term) though.

Edit: After further consideration, I'm not sure I agree that the term gatekept applies to the structural sense. It certainly is a 'barrier to entry'. But gatekeeping strongly implies trying to keep someone out. I've never encountered it used synonymously with 'barrier to entry' before now, and I don't think that's a useful definition either.

Another Edit: Gatekeeping is a barrier to entry, but not every barrier to entry is gatekeeping. Serious study of quantum mechanics has a high barrier of entry simply because the concepts involved aren't easy. Gatekeeping could be another barrier, but is likely to vary by individual experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not sure I agree with the unlearning part as my players had no issues with BiTD... It's pretty traditional in it's player side mechanics... of course we are speaking to whether the GM has a higher cognitive, mental, etc. workload than the players In BitD (After running it I still believe they do) not whether it's harder than D&D (I don't think either is "harder" in an objective sense but running them requires different skillsets which may be harder or easier for some to leverage.).

My players found the ability to introduce elements into the fictional world to be a pretty significant departure from D&D. And also things like players deciding what Action is relevant, and players deciding how much XP they get.....although these were easier things to grasp.

On the GM side, I don't know if there's more cognitive load for Blades. I think that the system is there to do the heavy lifting so that the GM is free to determine the specifics of the outcome that the dice have called for.

What are these techniques? And would they do that universally for anyone who leveraged them?

I think a big one, for me anyway, is the idea of a Partial Success, or Success with a Complication. Those 4s and 5s in Blades are what drives a lot of the fiction, and I've found I can adapt that to D&D very easily, and suddenly encounters are becoming a little more dynamic because I'm adding complications or setbacks throughout.

"Play to find out" is an ethos that I've found is very helpful for any game I GM, even if it isn't a perfect fit for a specific game, like D&D. I've found that blending that mentality with the kind of prepared elements typically associated with D&D makes my game smoother, and focuses me on what's happening in play and not so much what I had written prior to the start of the session.

Then there are always other specific mechanics that can be swiped from one game. I mentioned earlier in the thread that we've ditched the default 5E initiative process in favor of the one from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. I've also instituted an Inspiration Pool where there are extra d20s and any player can use one at any time to gain advantage on a roll, or they can use two to roll over. These alternate elements don't work wonders to speed up play, but they do make things more dynamic and the players are more engaged and aware, which does wind up taking the load off of me.

All this stuff is subjective, of course, and what works for one person may not for another. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas out there that we could come up with.