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

[Maxperson]

Depends on how you play. In Traveller, "referee" is the title given to the Dungeon Master analogue.

An incomplete title, though. Even with that title, the Traveller, "Referee" is more than just a referee.

 

[Oofta]

Others have made cogent and excellent cases for why Fairness and Neutrality are not synonymous in a D&D context. There is no need to reprise those arguments.

I just want to point out the tone of the quote used by Jack Daniel is very different from the Unitary Executive DM role envisioned by the O.P.

The players are meant to explore and gain XP.
The DM is explicitly intended to be entertaining the players, and house rules are subject to a democratic vote by the participants of the game.

Very different than the great and ALL powerful 'neutral' Ultimate Arbiter, premised as the Ideal DM.

There is no expectation of a democratic vote. You can run it that way if you want, I've never seen it or heard of it in real life.

 

[prabe]

There is no expectation of a democratic vote. You can run it that way if you want, I've never seen it or heard of it in real life.

I have known DMs who sought feedback on houserules/optional rules.

 

[Jack Daniel]

"Neutral" means non-participation: literally, not taking part. That's literally part of the definition of the word. "Unbiased" means you don't treat any participant with favoritism.

I aggressively do not care about semantics. If I wanted to quibble pedantically over the meanings of words, I could have easily been a philosophy major. Insofar as neutrality is colloquially a synonym for fairness and impartiality, it is reasonable to describe a DM as a neutral arbiter. Moreover, even if you argue that neutrality is not achievable for the DM in practice, it's worth striving for in principle. It's an ideal.

There is no expectation of a democratic vote. You can run it that way if you want, I've never seen it or heard of it in real life.

Well Mojo is reading the notion of a "democratic vote" into that excerpt that I posted from Mentzer. It isn't there—the text only says that rules changes should be agreed upon by all participants, but it doesn't stipulate how a group should arrive at such an agreement. It certainly doesn't preclude the DM making that decision and the players acquiescing.

 

[happyhermit]

I find it kinda hilarious how many people state something to the effect of; "The GM is playing the game, ipso facto, they are a Player." As if that is the end of the story and that the English language in the real world doesn't make distinctions in context all the time.

I might start describing myself as everything I do in this vein. Usually don't call myself a mathematician, or an astrophysicist, or a rocket scientist, or philosopher but if someone were to put me to the test of; "WERE YOU OR WERE YOU NOT ENGAGED IN THE ACT OF PHILOSOPHIZING" I would have to the concede the point. So yeah, I will let everyone know that I was and am a mathematician, I don't expect any confusion.

 

[Azzy]

I have known DMs who sought feedback on houserules/optional rules.

I always do. It's about fairness.

 

[prabe]

I always do. It's about fairness.

I ... generally set the houserules myself (because AFAIK I'm the only one who goes looking for them) but I make it clear I'm willing to listen to the players if they have ideas or preferences, or if something just isn't working for them.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If you can understand the difference between a democratically elected leader and a tyrant, this should not be so hard.

the DM is the former. He gets the power from the players who trust him to do some tasks. He is given the power.

you can say he gets a vote just like the players but this does not explain the situation. An elected leader is a citizen and usually gets a vote but that does not mean they don’t have extra power and responsibility.

and like an elected leader if the players don’t like what is happening they can voice their displeasure and ultimately throw him out of office.

but after he is elected, his role shifts from just playing. Just like a president is still a citizen but has other things to do and more authority to do it,

the idea that D&D is some kind of drum circle is new. It’s not what I have ever seen or participated in.

of course you listen to the players as DM and consider changes. But ultimately you decide if the player got advantage or not. You named the shopkeeper that just got met.

you’re the leader for now and that is subject to change but you are more that just a player.
You have more responsibility and more work; being a reasonable player you respect those facts and place some trust when you grant this role to the DM.

you’re a citizen too but if you are running the country we don’t think much about you being your own constituent.

 

[Charlaquin]

Reread the OP. Literally the very first post shows that claim. Right from the top, the context was set that when were talking about the DM being a “player”, it’s not in the literal sense, but in the context of compared to how D&D defines a player, and to argue against the claim made that the “DM is a player like any other player.”

This isn’t meant to be directed solely at you because others are making the same flawed argument as this one; arguing a strawman that the OP and topic are not making.

The quote in the OP doesn’t actually make the claim that the DM and the other players all being players means they are on equal footing in terms of role or responsibility though. It does suggest that, because the DM is a player, they should invite the other players to participate in the world building process. I don’t personally agree with that assertion, but that assertion isn’t what Snarf went on to write an essay rebutting. They rebutted the premise that the DM is a player at all, rather than accepting that premise and rebutting the suggestion that because they are a player, they should share worldbuilding responsibility with the other players.

In my opinion, a better tac to take would be to say that yes, the DM is a player, but not all players are DMs, and world building is generally a part of the DM’s role. Certainly a DM can invite non-DM players to take part in worldbuilding if they wish. But the DM being a player does not mean they should invite the other players to do so, as worldbuilding is not typically part of the role prescribed to players other than the DM.

 

[Azzy]

I ... generally set the houserules myself (because AFAIK I'm the only one who goes looking for them) but I make it clear I'm willing to listen to the players if they have ideas or preferences, or if something just isn't working for them.

Right, I usually set them up myself, too. My group is also likely to adopt "common" houserules due to having multiple DMs in the group (we alternate running campaigns). Regardless, I try to get feedback from the other members of the group before implementing a new houserule.