Is the DM the most important person at the table

[hawkeyefan]

I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.

I think that knowing that you can craft a ruling in the moment instead of knowing all the intricacies of rules is key to success of a GM. And in 5E D&D, in particular, this is something that is brought up often. It's one of the big things that the DM should try and remember above all other things. Knowing this approach and relying on static elements like Character stats and DCs will get you pretty far as a DM.

I agree with you that the GM typically has more to do than a player. This is why I advocate offloading some of the non-DM-essential tasks to others.

The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does. However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.

I understand the sentiment, but I think that framing it this way creates a dichotomy that's unnecessary. The role of player and GM are equally important, as the game cannot occur without either (except in games that have been crafted with that in mind, like Fiasco or similar games). The fact that there's almost always more than one player and almost always only one GM is what shifts that balance a bit.

Related, having a game with the best GM ever might still fall flat if the players are simply going through the motions and not bringing any creativity or energy to the game. Flipping that, all the energy and creativity in the world on the part of the players can only do so much if the GM is simply going through the motions.

 

[MGibster]

I understand the sentiment, but I think that framing it this way creates a dichotomy that's unnecessary. The role of player and GM are equally important, as the game cannot occur without either (except in games that have been crafted with that in mind, like Fiasco or similar games).

If I have a session where one player is unable to make it because of outside obligations we typically still play. If I can’t make it the session is cancelled. Yes, players are important. But the GM is the only person at the table whose absence guarantees the game does not get played. He or she is the lynchpin.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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 .

I suspect we'd find DMs who succumb to ego regardless of whether they're running modules or homebrew. I don't think bad DMing is restricted to one over the other.

When you homebrew, sure, in a sense you are more right because you created that world and decided what went into it. You presumably know it better than anyone. Even if the DM allows a player to contribute to the world (in the sense of creating things related to their backstory) it's still going to typically need to be approved by the DM. When you homebrew you typically have full authority of the setting, whereas if you run a published setting you share some authority with the established canon. Unless you change it, but if you don't make the players aware of such changes it can lead to serious problems when the players make assumptions based on information their characters should know, but it turns out the DM changed that fact without informing them and that therefore those assumptions were wrong. Not impossible to avoid, but certainly a potential pitfall.

Of course, none of that means that the DM should prioritize their own fun ahead of that of the players. Being the authority doesn't make you more 'important' in the truest sense. It just makes you the authority.

 

[MGibster]

This is an assumption, one that removes the effort from one group and adds to to another for no good reason other than tradition. Players have many responsibilities, it's just that the general zeitgeist is to not expect much from a player or hold them to account. The GM's job is vastly simpler if you remove the assumption that they have to police or entertain the players all on their lonesome. This is one of those persistent ideas that adds to the unnecessary burden of the GM and helps prevent entry.

It’s not an assumption. I’m basing my opinion on my experience, what I’ve heard from other people, and the many game books I’ve read. I can accept that you may disagree with my opinions but please do not refer to them as assumptions.

But I think we’re too far apart on this to have a meaningful dialogue. We can’t even agree on the definitions of words and concepts. And if we can’t agree on that there’s nowhere to go.

 

[prabe]

I suspect we'd find DMs who succumb to ego regardless of whether they're running modules or homebrew. I don't think bad DMing is restricted to one over the other.

Agreed. I do kinda wonder if the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play, here, though, in that maybe bad DMs tend to be more hubristic.

When you homebrew, sure, in a sense you are more right because you created that world and decided what went into it. You presumably know it better than anyone. Even if the DM allows a player to contribute to the world (in the sense of creating things related to their backstory) it's still going to typically need to be approved by the DM. When you homebrew you typically have full authority of the setting, whereas if you run a published setting you share some authority with the established canon.

Not having much interest in canon, and not wanting to argue about it if I change something (or get it wrong) are reasons I homebrew my setting. Not the top reasons, but reasons.

Of course, none of that means that the DM should prioritize their own fun ahead of that of the players. Being the authority doesn't make you more 'important' in the truest sense. It just makes you the authority.

Agreed. Everyone at the table should want everyone at the table to have fun. I do find it interesting how many rules options and suggestions for DMing that seem to say to the DM: "Have less fun." The things I do that I don't pass to the players (I run inits myself, and all NPCs, and I write the setting and adventures) I do because they are fun.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe it would be more helpful to talk about roles rather than people. There are often several players and usually only one GM, and the numbers seem to be the focus for a lot of the discussion. The numbers aren't a index of importance though, but rather a reflection of the game system. Different game systems also allocate responsibility for defining the diagetic frame very differently. The role of the GM in a game like Houses of the Blooded, for example, is very different than the role of the DM in D&D. Beyond that, the role and authority of the DM varies significantly from table to table even within that single game system.

There is also a historical spectrum at work here - D&D is an old game, and some people play it using old the old school model and some people play it using a newer model to distribute authority.. Newer games tend to describe the role of GM a little differently, and many of them talk about 'players' as a collective noun that includes the GM, a fact that usually directly indexes a very different sort of power distribution and thus a different model of authority over the diagetic frame. Even in a conversation just about D&D we need to account for a wide range of play styles and table contracts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s not an assumption. I’m basing my opinion on my experience, what I’ve heard from other people, and the many game books I’ve read. I can accept that you may disagree with my opinions but please do not refer to them as assumptions.

But I think we’re too far apart on this to have a meaningful dialogue. We can’t even agree on the definitions of words and concepts. And if we can’t agree on that there’s nowhere to go.

Yeah, I'm confused about the pushback on assumption, as there's nothing to say that assumptions can't be based on experience or even that assumptions are bad things. After all, most of our daily lives operate around assumptions. If you prefer opinion, that's fine, the word replacement doesn't change my argument at all. But, if you feel you can't engage the ideas because of the words used, I can't gainsay you on that. Happy gaming!

 

[Imaro]

Maybe it would be more helpful to talk about roles rather than people. There are often several players and usually only one GM, and the numbers seem to be the focus for a lot of the discussion. The numbers aren't a index of importance though, but rather a reflection of the game system. Different game systems also allocate responsibility for defining the diagetic frame very differently. The role of the GM in a game like Houses of the Blooded, for example, is very different than the role of the DM in D&D. Beyond that, the role and authority of the DM varies significantly from table to table even within that single game system.

The numbers can definitely influence and inform importance. If my game cannot be played absent a GM but can be played absent a player (even if the reason is numbers) the GM role is of greater significance or importance than the role of player. If it's easier to find players than it is to find a GM ( again, even if the reason is... numbers) the GM role is of more significance or importance. In other words while not the only factor that determines or contributes to the role of GM being more important it certainly is a (major??) factor.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I have a session where one player is unable to make it because of outside obligations we typically still play. If I can’t make it the session is cancelled. Yes, players are important. But the GM is the only person at the table whose absence guarantees the game does not get played. He or she is the lynchpin.

Right, but then that's about that specific game. In that case, sure, that makes sense. You need a GM and at least one player for sure. Or, in the case of GM-less games, then at least two participants.

 

[Fenris-77]

The numbers can definitely influence and inform importance. If my game cannot be played absent a GM but can be played absent a player (even if the reason is numbers) the GM role is of greater significance or importance than the role of player.

The operative phrase there is your game. I think you've fairly described a type of game for sure. D&D and other games that still show pretty heavy simulationist roots tend to require a lot of prep and a pretty high degree of information control/mastery. That description doesn't hold for all RPGs though.

If it's easier to find players than it is to find a GM ( again, even if the reason is... numbers) the GM role is of more significance or importance. In other words while not the only factor that determines or contributes to the role of GM being more important it certainly is a (major??) factor.

I don't know how useful it is to rely on anecdotal experience for a general description. I've always found it hard to find players that are 'right' for the kind of game I want to run, but that doesn't inform my opinion of 'importance'. Finding players generally isn't hard of course, and even easier the more common the game you're looking for players for, but finding players isn't the same as finding the right players. So, again, you describes a certain subset of D&D style game well, but fall short when that description is pressed onto a wider selection of samples. I guess it depends on what you're trying to define. We're in the General Forums, so I was trying to spread a wider net than just D&D and games specifically like it.