D&D General The DM is Not a Player; and Hot Topic is Not Punk Rock

[MatthewJHanson]

I'm going to keep calling the GM a player. It's an asymmetrical game. That's fine, everybody can still be a player even if not all their rolls are the same.

Calling the DM a player (in the context we use for players in the game) is like saying that the referee of a football game is a player.

The enforcer of rules cannot be a player because they inherently control the power over the game when the other players do not.

I think that the role of a DM is VERY different from a referee in sports.

1. In sports there are two opposing teams using predetermined rules. One team will win the other team will lose (or they tie). The ref is there to make sure the winner is determined fairly. This is nothing like D&D. There is only one team (and the DM is on that team). The rules exist only to provide structure for that story, and the only way you win is too have fun.

2. When I GM, I am not the sole arbiter of the rules. I can't remember them all, and when I do, I'll ask my players what if they remember (last session it was the rules for shoving). If we're in the middle of play and I overlook a rule and the other players remind me of it, that's great (shouldn't that NPC spellcaster make a concentration check?) If I have to make an ad hoc ruling, I sometimes throw out options and ask the players which one they think makes sense.

3. In sports, breaking the rules is a punitive system. If you cheat, you can take a penalty, and that can be part of the games. In high school basket ball, I had a coach say it could be worth committing a foul if it kept the other team from making an easy shot, since the penalty was less severe. The is no penalty for breaking the rules in D&D, other than possibly people being upset with you for breaking the social contract.

 

[prabe]

I guess a centralized authority may be a good idea in a game where you can win or lose... But that's not the case here, isn't it?

I'm quoting this because it's shorter, but I'm as much replying to @MatthewJHanson

While there isn't the same win/lose thing going on in sports, there is still succeed/fail in D&D. In principle that outcome should be in doubt, and I think the game works better the more the DM is open to either result, so the comparison doesn't seem as inapt to me as it does to you to--as I said: It's a matter of preference, at least at modern tables.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That isn't something that's inherently good or worth keeping that way.

Sure, some RPGs are designed to be more collaborative. But D&D? D&D is built this way, so I'd argue that in order to run the game remotely like it was designed to be, then yes, it's something that should be kept that way. In D&D, the DM runs the game and the game world. The DM is the key storyteller, and the one who has to keep everything organized and flowing. It's literally in the rules to be that way, and for good reason.

I'm not saying or implying that the DM should never listen to players or get their input. But that at times (and I'd posit often), the DM will need final say to keep the game flowing as designed. The DM runs the NPCs, monsters, and everything behind the scenes, so the DM needs to have the ability to do so effectively. If you're playing a game where the players are determining how NPCs and monsters act and react, and where things appear in the game world, and have control over the plot, then you're not playing D&D as it's designed to be played. If you want to play that way, sure. No one is saying it's bad. It's not just not how D&D is designed, and you're running it counter to the actual rules in the rulebooks.

If I'm playing soccer with a beachball and counting every goal as 2 points, I'm still playing a game and there isn't anything wrong with that, but I'm not playing soccer how it was designed or intended to be played, or how it's played by the general populace.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm going to keep calling the GM a player. It's an asymmetrical game. That's fine, everybody can still be a player even if not all their rolls are the same.

I think that the role of a DM is VERY different from a referee in sports.

No analogy is perfect. But the idea of a neutral arbiter is why we often analogize the DM to a referee (in fact, the first DMs were called referees, from wargaming).

1. In sports there are two opposing teams using predetermined rules. One team will win the other team will lose (or they tie). The ref is there to make sure the winner is determined fairly. This is nothing like D&D. There is only one team (and the DM is on that team). The rules exist only to provide structure for that story, and the only way you win is too have fun.

This isn't always true, in many ways. Some sports don't have teams. Some sports don't have fully pre-determined rules. Some sports don't have winner and losers.

But yes, when there is a referee in a sport (because not all sports have them), the job of the referee is not to make sure that the winner is determined fairly, it is to ensure that the rules are applied fairly. The players determine the winner- because the players in the sport is what it's all about! The referee just ... facilitates the play.

Sound familiar?

2. When I GM, I am not the sole arbiter of the rules. I can't remember them all, and when I do, I'll ask my players what if they remember (last session it was the rules for shoving). If we're in the middle of play and I overlook a rule and the other players remind me of it, that's great (shouldn't that NPC spellcaster make a concentration check?) If I have to make an ad hoc ruling, I sometimes throw out options and ask the players which one they think makes sense.

But you are the sole arbiter of the rules. Because it's your choice to ask. It's your choice to canvas opinion. It's your choice to throw out options and then to decide which ones (if any) to take.

To put this in perspective, imagine if, after a ruling, a player said, "Nope. I'm going to use a different rule." Ignoring the social context (of course you're going to talk it out, etc.), the final decision-making authority will lie with you.

You can farm things out, but the

3. In sports, breaking the rules is a punitive system. If you cheat, you can take a penalty, and that can be part of the games. In high school basket ball, I had a coach say it could be worth committing a foul if it kept the other team from making an easy shot, since the penalty was less severe. The is no penalty for breaking the rules in D&D, other than possibly people being upset with you for breaking the social contract.

I'm not even sure what to say to this? Rules, and violating them, is entirely within the scope of the rule-set. Not to get meta, but ...

In sports, if breaking the rules has a penalty, then enforcing it is "part of the game" although it can also be part of breaking the social contract. Is fouling a shooter by playing great defense "punitive?"

On the other hand, D&D's rules themselves are designed to be broken (specific beats general) and the referee/DM is supposed to adjudicate those rules. And the DM is supposed to determine when a player has "correctly" broken a rule and "incorrectly" broken a rule, and what the penalty is.

Player: My druid puts on the plate armor.

DM: Okay, your druid explodes.

fin

 

[Stormonu]

I believe the DM is a player as well.

The referee of a sports game is actually a bad analogy for the DM. The DM isn't just some striped individual on the field calling out penalties, they are also THE OPPOSING TEAM. Some times, they're even filling in positions on the player's side as well, including the the coach, owner and even the fans cheering (or booing) in the crowd.

So, yes - the DM is a player. Their role is just VERY different from everyone else at the table. They still have rules to abide by, but they aren't just adjucating rule queries, they have to fill in and make decisions for how NPC's act and react. That requires active participation, not passive. If it was passive, the DM would be going by some sort of checklist, reaction table or the like. If the DM wasn't a player, what need would there be for the role? The players could simply do rule adjucation by themselves if they so desired.

However, that doesn't except a DM from avoiding bad habits like pet NPCs or DMNPCs, but it doesn't preclude the DM from getting into character as a NPC either and getting into just as much roleplay as the others at the table.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with you that the DM and the players have different roles, and that division of roles is important. But I do not agree that this means the DM isn’t a player. They’re just a player with a different role. D&D is an asymmetrical game. Most players control a single game piece, called a character, which they use as a sort of avatar to interact with the game world. But one player controls many game pieces, called non-player characters, and applies the rules to determine the outcomes of the players’ game actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is controversial. And yet, I see it repeatedly stated that DMs are players. I think that this is primarily in the context of collaborative world building, and is more easily invoked for certain TTRPGs that are not D&D.

See, I believe the DM is a player, but I don’t think that belief has anything to do with collaborative worldbuilding. Sometimes the world is built by the author of a published setting. Sometimes the world is built by the DM. Sometimes the world is built by the DM and the players collaboratively. In all three cases, the DM and the players are participating in an asymmetrical game, with the DM in one role and the rest of the players in another.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2. When I GM, I am not the sole arbiter of the rules.

Just to focus on this bit. Yes, you are. You are the one to make the final decision. Whether that decision is to leave it up to the players, or to ask, or which option you choose, you're the one still making that decision. The fact that your examples are only situational where you aren't sure about something proves this. Otherwise, you'd be changing rules and getting player input on rules you were sure on as well.

If we are playing, and you say the ogre hits my PC for 25 damage on it's attack, and I say, "No it doesn't. I dive out of the way at the last moment." Do I get my way? What if the other players agree with me? And now none of us ever take damage from monsters. Ever. Because the other players and I always tell you what we don't suffer ill effects from creatures you control.

Unless you are the sole arbiter of the rules, the above would be allowed regardless of how you felt or wanted. I doubt that's the case in your games, and that you do in fact act as sole arbiter.

 

[Ancalagon]

There is no wrong way to play D&D.

rubs temples

Yes there is. I'm going to give a ridiculous example - playing D&D in a house that is on fire. Of course no one does that... but there are PLENTY OF WRONG WAYS of playing. I don't mean "if you play without feats you are playing wrong!" kind of wrong. But playing TTRPG has a whole realm of complexities and social interactions, and some of them can be reaaaaaly problematic.

 

[prabe]

I agree with you that the DM and the players have different roles, and that division of roles is important. But I do not agree that this means the DM isn’t a player. They’re just a player with a different role. D&D is an asymmetrical game. Most players control a single game piece, called a character, which they use as a sort of avatar to interact with the game world. But one player controls many game pieces, called non-player characters, and applies the rules to determine the outcomes of the players’ game actions.

See, I believe the DM is a player, but I don’t think that belief has anything to do with collaborative worldbuilding. Sometimes the world is built by the author of a published setting. Sometimes the world is built by the DM. Sometimes the world is built by the DM and the players collaboratively. In all three cases, the DM and the players are participating in an asymmetrical game, with the DM in one role and the rest of the players in another.

I particularly agree with your use in both posts of "asymmetrical" to describe the game.

One of these players is not like the others ...