Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is the DM the most important person at the table
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7927577" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>have </em>to be that way, you can throw a potluck. It is, ultimately, a choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7927577, member: 16814"] 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 [I]have [/I]to be that way, you can throw a potluck. It is, ultimately, a choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is the DM the most important person at the table
Top