Is the DM the most important person at the table

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[aramis erak]

In 40 years of gaming, I've only had one campaign taken over by someone else... but that was fine, because I got to play, and in one of the settings I prefer to play rather than run: L5R.

I've had only a couple groups that continued to play together after I quit running... but one of those. the group had existed before I GMed for them, plays multiple games together, and are a tight knit bunch. And I run for them via Discord or Skype (whichever is working that week)...

 

[aramis erak]

That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to. I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing. Others have never done it, and refuse to do it. Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.

GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone wants to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.

I'd argue it's not one skill, but a collection of skills... at least one of which is communication in general, and at least one is system specific knowledge.

 

[aramis erak]

The DM is currently the one performing the most important role in the game, but is not the most important person in the social group.

Makes an assumption that an RPG Group has social function outside the game. While that has been the norm, it's

When that's not true, tthe GM than also usually is the socially most important party.
This can be caused by

• the group being friends of the GM but not each other (tho' that changes(
• The group being respondents to an LFP advert
• the group being organized by an outsider who appoints the GM
  • RPG Clubs
  • store Sponsored
  • Bar/Pub/restaurant sponsored
  • publisher sponsored play

Often the GM is the glue holding a group together, even if not the dominant in the social group.

I know I've had players who disliked each other play at my table... in the same game... in part because I will see to it that play remains civil... and everyone gets a turn.

And, there are others who simply won't game at my table.

 

[pemerton]

I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!

I've even read some of it!

It's a good system!

 

[pemerton]

You need to be good at heavy improv (a skill not everyone posseses as well as being a style many may not enjoy) since you're not doing any planning but instead letting the players drive. As a DM/GM you need to be able to take pretty extensive notes while playing since you're effectively making stuff up as you go, unless consistency isn't a worry. I just don't see this as necessarily easier just different and harder than playing in different ways from running in a traditional manner.

I think that for some they just aren't wired to handle constant on the fly improvisation, it never becomes easy for them to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated by said consequences (along with simpler the fiction also generated by simpler action declarations).

<snip>

I think for many, though it may be more intensive prep wise (and much less so while running the game), it is easier to have something they can fall back on as a foundation...whether that is an entire adventure path or simply the bullet point notes that @hawkeyefan spoke to earlier.

I think the need to take notes (extensive or otherwise) can be exaggerated. A lot of the action in a RPG, at least in my experience, is "local" in time and space (eg a certain thing happens to a certain PC as a result of trying to do such-and-such) and so keeping track of it is not wildly different from keeping track of hit points or whether a door has been opened or shut in a simple game of D&D.

That's not to say there's no big picture stuff - of course there is - but tracking that has to be done in any game session. Whether you're marking changes on you prepped map and key, or noting stuff on a bit of paper that was blank to start with, you're still writing about the same amount.

This means that, as far as consequences are concerned, I'm not seeing the big gap between working from heavy preparation and other sorts of approaches. No matter how much prep a GM has done, doesn't s/he still have to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated? If not, then what does play look like?

 

[Imaro]

I think the need to take notes (extensive or otherwise) can be exaggerated. A lot of the action in a RPG, at least in my experience, is "local" in time and space (eg a certain thing happens to a certain PC as a result of trying to do such-and-such) and so keeping track of it is not wildly different from keeping track of hit points or whether a door has been opened or shut in a simple game of D&D.

That's not to say there's no big picture stuff - of course there is - but tracking that has to be done in any game session. Whether you're marking changes on you prepped map and key, or noting stuff on a bit of paper that was blank to start with, you're still writing about the same amount.

This means that, as far as consequences are concerned, I'm not seeing the big gap between working from heavy preparation and other sorts of approaches. No matter how much prep a GM has done, doesn't s/he still have to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated? If not, then what does play look like?

I would say the difference is when I've prepped beforehand, even if I miss something usually my notes will act as a reminder or have enough hints that it will jog my memory around something I may have missed noting down... However when I'm creating whole cloth in a game like BitD I'm constantly jotting down stuff because there's nothing for me to fall back on if I forget to note something down.

On a slight tangent but definitely related... it has been my experience that while I can often tell what my players take note of or think is important it doesn't always work like that, a minor detail created in the moment I thought of as throw away is suddenly something they want to leverage three sessions later.

EDIT: To address your statement about consequences... in the same way if I do prep beforehand I can jot down different information for different levels of a knowledge check... I can also jot down various positive and negative consequences that may arise for PC actions, even if I don't use the specific ones I wrote down (say the characters made a choice, action, whatever that I didn't account for) they can act as a springboard for creating new ones. Creating consequence after consequence which games like BitD seemed designed to have happen with a much greater frequency than traditional games because of the the rolls without any type of prep creates quite a large gap in the necessity for note taking as well as the expended mental bandwith.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We've been using them distinctly for the majority of this discussion... now you're trying to use pedantry to what... exactly? score points? Confuse the issue... what?

If that's confusing the issue, I'm all for an anarchy of befuddlement. I mean, really, it seems your point of contention is that my point undercuts yours by a tad in that you can't start by assuming your conclusion in your premise if you can't ignore that you have to have players to have player roles. I guess I could look the other way and let you have the argument that GMs are unique things that must exist before anything else for a game to form and then later change to a role assigned to a player in a game.

But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and then figured out who was going to GM. Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it. I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Eh. I think a lot of the dispute goes back to the original .... framing (heh) of the post. Is the DM the most important person at the table?

That's a lot like asking, "Is the host the most important person at the party?"

Sure, people can get caught up in all sorts of side debates, for example-

1. Can you have a party without guests? Since you can't, how can the host be more important?

2. Doesn't the host get better at throwing parties over time? So a host that throws a lot of parties won't be nearly as stressed out, right?

3. Doesn't the type of party matter? Look, if you're throwing a potluck that invites the guest to participate in crafting the nar... um, party, isn't it all about equal?


...and so on. But for all the nitpicking that might get involved, most people understand that the host has more obligations than the guests, and so, no matter how much the guests might chip in, even if they stick around and clean, even if they bring a bottle of wine and some apps, it's still more work to throw a party, and there are always more people willing to go to a party than there are people willing to throw a party.

...and that's okay, because some people just enjoy throwing parties. Doesn't make them important.

Does the host have more obligation? That seems assumed, right in the middle, even after you lampshaded potlucks. What 'more' obligation does a host have? Let's agree that in a traditional party, the host does have more obligation. I'm good with that -- they invite people, clean house, provide snacks, maybe a theme, what-have-you -- but is that always the case? Are all parties traditional like this? Can a party be spontaneous, where the host has no obligations other than letting the party happen? Sure, that can happen -- we've either all been there or at least seen it on TV, right? The host has almost no obligations here, they're almost a unwilling party, if some TV and movie excesses are to be believed.

But, that's not very useful. So, let's look at the potluck again. Here, the host definitely does have obligation, if nothing other than to invite people and put out some means of determining what's brought. That can be heavy or light, depending -- the host could ask for specific dishes or categories from each person individually or might just throw up a sign up sheet where people self-identify what they're bringing. So, still, some obligation there. And, the host is usually obligated to ensure there's adequate space and dinnerware available (at least, that seems to be a usual expectation in the potlucks I've attended). So, yes, the host has obligations. But, then what are the obligations of the guests? They have to prepare food, bring it, and ensure that any special serving needs are met (at least in coordination with the host, but usually it's up to you to bring anything special needed to serve). And, guests have to partake of what's brought by the other guests, usually with some modicum of manners. So, guests have some pretty serious obligations as well, and often personal pride on the line. I mean, I don't skimp when I bring something for a potluck, usually spending more time preparing the meal than I would if I were having it at home.

So, we have somewhat similar levels of obligation. What happens, then, if that obligation is abrogated? What if the host fails to provide adequate space or dinnerware? I've seen this happen at a potluck -- it's usually a bit of a mess, but people make do. Someone usually runs out to the store and brings back some paper/plastic dinnerware and we eat and have fun. I suppose, if the host completely abandons everything, and no one else can take the role in a pinch, things do halt. That's bad, so the host can impact the party pretty heavily. What about the guests? If all the guests, or even just enough of them, decide everyone else is bringing food and they're pressed for time/can't be arsed and just show up, what happens? There's not enough food to go around. Usually hard feelings. The host cannot correct for this outside going to the store and buying enough food, which utterly screws the host. If everyone decides to not bring food, just show up to eat, then there's no party at all. So, it appears the guests can impact the party pretty heavily as well. Heck, just bringing one poorly cooked plate that gets everyone sick does a pretty good job of wrecking the party.

Right, well, now were at analogies, and how they're bad, but I tried to deal very fairly with yours. It holds up in a good number of places, but does try to lampshade where it doesn't and ignore that you can have a potluck party where both host and guests have pretty equal obligations, even if they are different. If either side abrogates, you're left with a bad or no party. So, what happens? Well, it appears that most GMs are afraid of having the party fail because of bad guests, so they don't throw potlucks and instead choose to throw parties that don't rely on the players to have a party -- all the players need to is show up and eat the GM's food. And, yeah, that's most parties (I suppose I can just say games, now, the analogy's worn through), and it's largely because we've done a good job training players to just show up and play in our games. But, it doesn't have to be that way, you can throw a potluck. It is, ultimately, a choice.

 

[Imaro]

If that's confusing the issue, I'm all for an anarchy of befuddlement. I mean, really, it seems your point of contention is that my point undercuts yours by a tad in that you can't start by assuming your conclusion in your premise if you can't ignore that you have to have players to have player roles. I guess I could look the other way and let you have the argument that GMs are unique things that must exist before anything else for a game to form and then later change to a role assigned to a player in a game.

And if you have to resort to the type of pedantry where suddenly you don't understand or choose not to acknowledge that player and GM have been used as two different types of participants in a roleplaying game for the entire conversation up to this point... there's not much left for us to say to one another. So yeah, whatevs you win buddy.

But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and then figured out who was going to GM. Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it. I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?

I haven't commented on your personal experience at all so not sure what your point is here and honestly I'm a little tired of trying to figure it out so I'll bow out of this conversation... again your anecdotal experience must be the experience of the majority so you win.