Is the DM the most important person at the table

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. Like I said, I'm not really trying to say that GMing is as easy as playing. My point is it's not as significantly harder (or need not be, at least) that many seem to think. I'd like to see more people try to GM, and the perception that it's so hard is an obstacle.

I think there are resources available to help make gaming easier. Like anything else, there's plenty of noise to go with the signal. But there is stuff out there. Of course, what will work for one person may not for another.

As for what can or should be ported into D&D, that's certainly going to depend on the specifics. There are plenty of mechanics that, however great they may be for their respective game, simply wouldn't work in D&D. There are others that may.....see my post above in response to @Imaro for a few examples.

I do think that playing more games than D&D and those similar to it is something that will help a lot of people by offering different methods and practices that, even if they cannot be ported directly to D&D, can inform how they DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 would agree with the last sentence....more knowledge of the rules may certainly be beneficial to the table. But at the same time, I'm thinking of the guy I know who can tell you what page in the PHB to find a specific rule for just about every edition of the game.....and yet, he's not a very good DM. Rules proficiency is a component of the role, for sure, but it's also a component for players, too.

My point about a player knowing more is that player can help shore up the DM's shortcoming. It really isn't absolutely necessary that a DM be ultra rules knowledgeable. If the players know more, they can help out. If they know less, then they'll go along with the DM's rulings, and everyone can learn as they play.

I mean, I learned to play as a little kid taught by slightly older kids, and doing things maybe 25% correctly. But we were having a blast.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I don't think any of this was that big a deal for my players... they've been introducing elements into D&D through backstory, goals, etc for years it's just a step less removed to throw the stuff into play also since we've played D&D with the "any ability score + skill" variant, picking your approach also wasn't earth shattering for them with the XP well they reward inspiration in 5e to each other so there's that....

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.

How does the system do the heavy lifting... IMO the heavy lifting is determining position and effect (often IMO harder than selecting a DC because there are now 2 axis instead of one), coming up with the fiction to suit the various results that can happen (D&D can be and is often binary while BiTD rarely is so instead of one outcome I have to come up with various smaller outcomes on the fly)... and framing the scenes on the fly (adding an element X infinity without the break afforded by having numerous players to pick up the slack when one is tired or hard pressed to come up with stuff.)

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.

See I fail to see how this makes running a game easier. How is telling a new DM that they have to come up with and adjudicate success conditions as well as various complications on the fly easier or simpler than having to decide a binary result? Especially if said binary result is planned out ahead of time?

"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.

IMO this seems to be conflating personal preference with "easier" and because it is your personal preference it probably feels easier to you... not sure that would hold out in the wild with a brand new DM/GM

 

[aco175]

To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure? Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.

 

[Fanaelialae]

To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure? Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.

I can't say with certainty. My group occasionally runs published adventures, but not often. We prefer homebrew.

That said, I would be surprised if there was a difference. Running a published adventure can be as much (or more) work than homebrewing. With a published adventure you need to absorb the material at a minimum, whereas with homebrew you're free to improvise as needed. (Obviously, you can improvise with published adventures as well, but too much improvisation without being familiar with the material can paint you into a corner, since you might establish something that contradicts an important fact in the module. Additionally, under certain circumstances, such as organized play, your authority to improvise may be limited.)

Important in what sense? In that they have the greatest authority? The most responsibilities? That only their fun matters? Some of those I would posit as factual, whereas other(s) I would say are an indicator of unhealthy hubris.

I don't think that running a module makes the GM's role any less significant FWIW. It makes certain aspects of the GM's job easier, but IME it can make others more challenging. I don't think that homebrew vs module changes much with respect to the GM's role overall.

 

[The Green Hermit]

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

Actually, as a relatively new GM, I find ENWorld extremely helpful. Research is easy for me, though, and I am used to sorting through the parts that will help me and the parts that will not.

It’s hard to learn on your own, but you don’t require a mentor to do it. Hell, it’s hard to do it with a mentor. But that doesn’t constitute gatekeeping. Something being hard isn’t gatekeeping.

Agreed.

I can't say with certainty. My group occasionally runs published adventures, but not often. We prefer homebrew.

That said, I would be surprised if there was a difference. Running a published adventure can be as much (or more) work than homebrewing. With a published adventure you need to absorb the material at a minimum, whereas with homebrew you're free to improvise as needed. (Obviously, you can improvise with published adventures as well, but too much improvisation without being familiar with the material can paint you into a corner, since you might establish something that contradicts an important fact in the module. Additionally, under certain circumstances, such as organized play, your authority to improvise may be limited.)

Important in what sense? In that they have the greatest authority? The most responsibilities? That only their fun matters? Some of those I would posit as factual, whereas other(s) I would say are an indicator of unhealthy hubris.

I don't think that running a module makes the GM's role any less significant FWIW. It makes certain aspects of the GM's job easier, but IME it can make others more challenging. I don't think that homebrew vs module changes much with respect to the GM's role overall.

I can somewhat see your point, since I have to do so much research about the various areas we go to. However, as a relatively new GM, having a published adventure to start with makes a ton of difference.

 

[aco175]

Important in what sense? In that they have the greatest authority? The most responsibilities? That only their fun matters? Some of those I would posit as factual, whereas other(s) I would say are an indicator of unhealthy hubris.

I guess I'm not sure is some let hubris in when they think that their game is the end all. I tend to think that when I used to homebrew my whole world I felt I needed to control some things and maybe some of that led me to think I was more 'right' in making the rules and being important. It may also have been that I was younger and some of that may have crept in.

Today we play with FR and I generally make my own adventures but use the shell they provide. While I do not think I have some of the same attitudes, I wonder if others have .

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can somewhat see your point, since I have to do so much research about the various areas we go to. However, as a relatively new GM, having a published adventure to start with makes a ton of difference.

I don't deny it. IIRC I had an easier time using published modules myself, when I first started out.

Different approaches work better for different people. Which is why it's so hard to come up with generalized DMing advice for new DMs. What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me.

My younger sister, for example, completely homebrewed the one and only game she ever ran. She was a natural at DMing, far beyond my skill level at the time (we were in our teens) even though I had been studying DMing techniques for years at that point (and had run a few games as well).

Knowing her, however, I honestly don't think she would have done as well had she tried to run a published adventure.

There's nothing wrong with preferring published adventures. It's simply that they work better for some DMs than others.

 

[Lanefan]

Ultimately, the DM needs an idea of the rules and general procedures. Instead of remembering all the rules, I think it would benefit the DM to know that uncertainty of a rule means he should make a ruling and keep the game moving.

My take on this has always been that as DM I don't need to know or remember all the rules all the time but I do need to remember roughly where to look them up as and when required.

Put another way, if you're going to memorize anything make it the rulebook index.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think any of this was that big a deal for my players... they've been introducing elements into D&D through backstory, goals, etc for years it's just a step less removed to throw the stuff into play also since we've played D&D with the "any ability score + skill" variant, picking your approach also wasn't earth shattering for them with the XP well they reward inspiration in 5e to each other so there's that....

I meant more declaring elements as part of an action...especially Flashbacks. That seems to me the big one that throws people.

Backstory and goals and fictional elements like NPCs and organizations and all of that were all things my players were comfortable with. Also largely the kind of stuff that Blades bakes into PC creation.

How does the system do the heavy lifting... IMO the heavy lifting is determining position and effect (often IMO harder than selecting a DC because there are now 2 axis instead of one), coming up with the fiction to suit the various results that can happen (D&D can be and is often binary while BiTD rarely is so instead of one outcome I have to come up with various smaller outcomes on the fly)... and framing the scenes on the fly (adding an element X infinity without the break afforded by having numerous players to pick up the slack when one is tired or hard pressed to come up with stuff.)

I find the position and effect to be pretty intuitive. The narration of what happens on a partial success or a failure is the area that’s trickier for me, but after some time I’ve become comfortable with it, and think I do a decent job of varying consequences a bit without relying to heavily on one kind. The fiction first approach is one that clicks for me.

See I fail to see how this makes running a game easier. How is telling a new DM that they have to come up with and adjudicate success conditions as well as various complications on the fly easier or simpler than having to decide a binary result? Especially if said binary result is planned out ahead of time?

I wasn’t necessarily saying this is something I’d recommend for new DMs. Just that these approaches are worthwhile to learn or see in practice, and may help making the job easier.

Having said that though, I would think someone whose first exposure to RPGs was Blades and then they went to D&D, that shift would likely be easier than vice versa.

IMO this seems to be conflating personal preference with "easier" and because it is your personal preference it probably feels easier to you... not sure that would hold out in the wild with a brand new DM/GM

Some of them, sure. I’ve said it’s subjective and that different things will work for different people.

Let’s move away from specific examples and instead ask “Can every GM do something new to make their game easier?”

I would lean heavily toward a yes, with the specific thing varying by GM.