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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I have known DMs who sought feedback on houserules/optional rules.
I always seek feedback from my players on house rules and optional rules. I don’t put it to a vote though. I ask for their opinions on the rule, I consider their opinions, and I make a final decision, trying to keep my interests and theirs in mind. That’s not a democratic process.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
I mean... If you do math, then yes, you are a mathematician. You may not be a professional mathematician, or even a particularly good mathematician (or maybe you are, I don’t know you or your math abilities 😜). But you are a mathematician nonetheless.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
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 say that. The whole reason this thread was created was as a response to the quote that the game is a communal game and DM is just like every other player. That’s an actual quote in the first post. “Just like” means the same.

And when people (like myself) have said the DM isn’t a player, that doesn’t mean they aren’t a player in a literal sense. No one is saying that. We are saying in the context of D&D, as the game defines roles, the DM is not a player.
 

Players control their characters. DM's control EVERYTHING else in the game (and even when done fairly and appropriately, that control sometimes intrudes into usurping the players control of their own characters). If the DM wants to "win" - they win. If the DM wants "a character" which is controlled entirely by themselves to dominate the game and disrupt the enjoyment of the NON-DM participants (a.k.a. players) then that's going to happen whether the DM adheres to the same strictures applied to the player-characters for that DM-controlled character - or doesn't. If the DM mandates that their own "character" be a party member, party leader, party wallflower or whatever, it is all but entirely irrelevant if that character does or doesn't have the same kind of character sheet as the PLAYER characters do, or follows the same rules (more or less) as the other PC's do in character creation, earning xp and treasure, etc. If the DM has a NON-PLAYER character do the same thing nothing is different except the nomenclature.

Yes, the manner in which DM's participate in the game is different from players for whom the DM administers the game. But for persons who aren't even participants in a given game to deny a DM permission to, in the game they themselves run, have a character who more or less follows rules for the player characters (what most label as a DMPC), is not functionally different from denying that DM permission to have NON-PLAYER characters (NPC's) who fully DO NOT in any way need to conform to player character restrictions. What is happening here is lack of understanding by certain DM's why they have a separate experience from the players in the first place. There's DM's who realize that thing I mentioned before about, "If the DM wants to win - they win." Maybe not even a conscious realization. But they then use the power of the position of DM to FORCE the intended manner of participation of the other players to take a back seat while the DM takes center stage utilizing a "player character" that is run by the DM as their instrument for doing so. They can and WILL do the same thing with an NPC as they would do with a "DMPC". If anything it can be worse with an NPC because an NPC doesn't have to follow PC rules. It's probably more annoying to players when it's a "DMPC" because ostensibly the DMPC has to stick to the same rules as their own characters do, but obviously the DM then uses their own position AS DM to misuse that character to the much diminished enjoyment of players.

It's all nearly identical symptoms of the same disease. This is a DM problem in general and NOT a problem with "DMPC's" in particular. It's simply frequently seen through the symptom of DMPC's whom the unfortunate DM has disrupting their own game's enjoyment for their traditional players/participants. You can simply write a rule into the game of, "The DM MAY NOT run a player character in their own game," in red ink, all caps, and a different font, and it wouldn't change a thing. DM's and players do indeed have different avenues of participation in the game, and this is simply the DM not understanding the difference, and possibly the game rules text not making the difference sufficiently clear (but I doubt that - it's just DM's who don't yet get it, and won't even if it's written out for them.)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It does say that. The whole reason this thread was created was as a response to the quote that the game is a communal game and DM is just like every other player. That’s an actual quote in the first post. “Just like” means the same.
Yes, but in the context of the sentence, it means “the DM is a player like any other (players are).” Obviously it doesn’t mean the DM is exactly the same as the other players, because the game very clearly delineates different roles for the DM and the other players.
And when people (like myself) have said the DM isn’t a player, that doesn’t mean they aren’t a player in a literal sense. No one is saying that. We are saying in the context of D&D, as the game defines roles, the DM is not a player.
Then maybe don’t use the words “the DM isn’t a player” to express that. No one disagrees that the DM has a different role than the other players, and we’ve now spent 205 posts arguing about whether or not the DM is participating in a game (something no one disagrees about) and whether or not the DM has a different role than the other players (something else no one disagrees about), when the actual point of contention is whether or not the non-DM players are entitled to take part in world building.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Here's what I meant by the DM is a player like any other.

I meant that we are all playing a game together and no one is uniquely responsible for providing an experience. We all should be playing to find out what happens. It should be a relationship of peers. No herding of cats. No one responsible for being group parent. No one curating or changing rules on a whim.

The idea is that the GM/DM does not have special insight. They have a different set of responsibilities then other people at the table, but that's it. They are also not servants or responsible for your fun. They have their own wants and desires.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
The idea is that the GM/DM does not have special insight.
I'm pulling this out, because it's the only part of your post I can muster any disagreement with (the rest is spot-on, and nicely done).

I agree that being GM/DM doesn't grant a person special insight, but I think that at many tables, the GM/DM is the one who's studied the game more, maybe poked around online more, probably gotten into more online arguments (it me), and such; so, while there's not really causation, there's a good case to be made for correlation.

I pretty much unreservedly agree with everything else in your post, to be clear.
 



Remove ads

Top