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

[Oofta]

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

I do as well depending on the rule. It's not like I have very many.

 

[happyhermit]

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.

Sure, and by that definition 99.99% or so of humans are mathematicians, making the statement still very useful... I wonder if a language could develop contextual definitions that are even more useful? Imagine a world where saying; "I am a mathematician" might indicate to people something more specific without even having to add any qualifiers like "of the 16th order and I do calculations for cash". Could save a lot of time if applied to all kinds of words and most people would probably just "get" the intended message, anyways just pie in the sky thinking from a linguist

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, and by that definition 99.99% or so of humans are mathematicians, making the statement still very useful... I wonder if a language could develop contextual definitions that are even more useful? Imagine a world where saying; "I am a mathematician" might indicate to people something more specific without even having to add any qualifiers like "of the 16th order and I do calculations for cash". Could save a lot of time if applied to all kinds of words and most people would probably just "get" the intended message, anyways just pie in the sky thinking from a linguist

Sure. If you go out of your way to describe yourself or someone else as a mathematician, it can generally be inferred that you mean a professional, or at least expert, mathematician. But if someone says “aren’t we all mathematicians?” and you say “no,” it can also be inferred from context that this conversation really isn’t about whether or not we do math, but rather about the nature of expertise. Here we have a similar situation, where one person said “the players should be at me to take part in worldbuilding because the DM is a player like any other” and another responded “no, because DMs have different roles and responsibilities than players.” It’s clear from context that we aren’t really talking about whether the DM is playing a game, but rather, the nature of the power dynamic between DMs and their fellow players. But that potentially interesting conversation is getting lost because everyone is too busy talking past each other about whether referee is an appropriate analogy for a DM’s role.

 

[happyhermit]

... Here we have a similar situation, where one person said “the players should be at me to take part in worldbuilding because the DM is a player like any other” and another responded “no, because DMs have different roles and responsibilities than players.” It’s clear from context that we aren’t really talking about whether the DM is playing a game, but rather, the nature of the power dynamic between DMs and their fellow players. ...

Yeah, and when someone says; "The GM is not a Player" a response of; "Do they not PLAY this game you speak of?" seems to be an great way to sidestep any sort of interesting distinction. If someone is pushing the point that the GM is more similar to the players and thus needs to be called a Player too, that's a thing. Arguing that the GM must be called a player because they engage in a game seems pointless and ignores the larger context of how our language often works, IMO.

Anyways, in my most preferred games the GM is very much not a Player, and certainly not just another player. I prefer games with lots of distasteful stuff like things the exist within the world that did not emerge in play, where I can just put myself in the shoes of a charachter and not worry about what makes a good story, where I can feel like the world is a place that I can attempt anything but seems internally consistent and not being created/shaped by the players out of character, etc. Games with no real preconcieved plot, but a bunch of stuff for the PCs to interact with. So, somebody can't really just take over and run that game, they can run a different one that is similar.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

So while I appreciate your further clarification (and will continue to think that you are erudite and/or smell nice), I do not agree with @prabe that this is unobjectionable.

Just from the beginning- "[N]o one is uniquely responsible for providing an experience."

Sure, that would be awesome! And it is more possible in certain TTRPGs that are not D&D. It is also possible in some, long-standing groups. But D&D for the most part, does not function like that.

The DM has additional responsibilities when it comes to "providing an experience" that other players do not. Period. Which makes the DM unique in that respect.

Again, there are many TTRPGs that function much better in terms of collaborative story-telling. And D&D can incorporate aspects of that at times; but even the most basic perusal of "How it Works" as a three step process (see the OP, quoting the PHB) shows that the DM has a responsibility for providing the D&D experience that is unique at the table. Not just different.

That's why I wrote the post; asserting that the DM is a player, in the context of D&D, is incorrect. IMO.

 

[clearstream]

Sure. If you go out of your way to describe yourself or someone else as a mathematician, it can generally be inferred that you mean a professional, or at least expert, mathematician. But if someone says “aren’t we all mathematicians?” and you say “no,” it can also be inferred from context that this conversation really isn’t about whether or not we do math, but rather about the nature of expertise. Here we have a similar situation, where one person said “the players should be at me to take part in worldbuilding because the DM is a player like any other” and another responded “no, because DMs have different roles and responsibilities than players.” It’s clear from context that we aren’t really talking about whether the DM is playing a game, but rather, the nature of the power dynamic between DMs and their fellow players. But that potentially interesting conversation is getting lost because everyone is too busy talking past each other about whether referee is an appropriate analogy for a DM’s role.

Indeed. Splitting hairs over neutral versus fair or disinterested is an unfortunate rabbit hole to dive down. Campbell clarified that -

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.

There are many claims here. Assumed is some set of participants in an activity that can be recognised as roleplaying gaming (and possibly D&D). Perhaps Campbell believes that -

1. No one participant curates or changes the rules on a whim. The obvious question is whether the problem is with "on a whim" or with "no one" or with those things in conjunction? And what about the game's designers, and the constitutive role of rules? What if one participant doesn't know the rules, but would love to join in the experience? Is anyone allowed to curate the rules for them?
2. No one is uniquely responsible for providing an experience. To my mind this says very little: they might have dissimilar roles in providing an experience, and still not be uniquely responsible.
3. We should all be playing to find out what happens? Again, this says very little, unless we picture the DM telling the other participants exactly what their characters are doing. I don't think anyone envisions that a DM should do that.
4. No one in charge (peers, no parenting). This seems entirely beside the point. Even if there were parenting - say literally, some participants are parents of the others - they might still have similar or dissimilar roles in providing the experience.
5. The DM does not have special insight. This seems beside the point (and too broad a claim to really sustain). Some DMs might indeed have special insight: would that change the position taken?
6. DMs have a different set of responsibilities. On surface, everyone seems to agree with this, but what are they? Were Campbell to go on to articulate that "different set", some unexamined contradictions might turn up.
7. DM is not responsible for your fun, and is allowed to have an interest in their own fun. This seems to address an underlying fear that itself is not articulated. It would be better to articulate that fear.

The DM is a player like any other comes out most of all like a position on authority or authorship. There is a sense of a denial of any DM'ly prerogative over the inclusion and interpretation of rules, and of the creation and management of the game world (everything other than the characters, let's say).

I suspect it comes down to understanding RPG as being engaged with in two out of three modes: RPG as wargaming, RPG as story-telling, and RPG as group-improv. Traditionally, RPG has been approached as a blend of wargaming and storytelling. Those who would like it to be approached as a blend of story-telling and group-improv might feel under-served, stifled, and disappointed, by the near-overwhelming preponderance of the traditional approach. To date, anyhow.

So perhaps the statement is best understood as a bright light illuminating an approach to RPG worth trying. Where, to me, it weakens itself unnecessarily is in framing itself as a denial of the traditional approach, when rather it should be a eulogy to the preferred approach. How can that approach be effectively engaged in? What are the traps for those new to it? What does it do that is uniquely worth having? If I set aside DM as authority and author, what delights or satisfactions do I get in exchange?

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Just for the sake of clarity, I'm going to define "player" as "someone participating in a game of D&D" and "Player" as "someone running one or more Player Characters, i.e. not the Dungeon Master."

The question hinges on the following: at what point have we begun to conflate the concepts of "player" and "Player"?

Of course the Dungeon Master is a player and a peer of the other players; and of course the Dungeon Master is not a Player. The gray areas lie somewhere in between these two obvious and hopefully uncontroversial statements.

Should the DM be made to herd cats, schedule games, be the group organizer as well as a player? Ideally not, but that's usually how it goes, especially if the DM is more invested and eager to run the campaign than any of the Players. If the DM is the one who cares the most, of course the DM is going to naturally fall into that organizer role—just like a DM who has a big table, battle-mats and minis, and a shelf full of rulebooks is probably naturally going to fall into the role of game host, because that's far easier than transporting piles of stuff.

Should the DM be the "group mom" who settles interpersonal disputes and talks to problem players and kicks That Guy? Ideally not, but there isn't always a perfectly clear line between adjudicating an in-game dispute (clearly the purview of the DM) and an out-of-game one. Sometimes the interpersonal stuff is totally and unavoidably enmeshed with the in-game stuff, and the business of calling out problematic in-game behavior is the overlapping responsibility of both the DM and all of the players.

Can the DM curate the setting or change the rules on a whim? Now we're definitely well into that gray area, where it depends on context and group dynamic. Obviously, for there to be a game at all, all of the players have to agree on what game they're playing. But for some groups, rules details and setting details are definitely under the sole purview of the DM and not the Players, most especially in RPGs that don't have a ton of player-facing rules or a char-op/build mini game*. Under these circumstances, a DM who changes the rules "on a whim" isn't necessarily doing something bad or beyond the scope of their role.

Sometimes the DM does have special insight, because as @prabe has pointed out, it's often the DM and only the DM who treats the game as a serious hobby, reads theory, posts on forums, etc. (Certainly when I play, some 90% of players are totally casual and never crack open a rulebook except to read a spell description.) Sometimes the DM is literally the game designer and is very often the world-builder. A DM cannot help but have special insight in those circumstances.

(* i.e. RPGs worth playing.)

 

[Umbran]

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.

But, that dodges the real question - what does it MEAN to have a different role, especially when you admit that, literally speaking, they are playing too?

Specifically, in terms of those other discussions - does having that different role give a GM entitlements, or should the GM be considered on similar footing in negotiations of what the table should be like.

 

[nevin]

Your question answers itself. GM has a different name for a reason. They run the game. You lose GM game over. You lose a few players game continues. Regardless of anyones personal preferences or hangups, just that one reality means the GM is on a different footing. They've got more power in any disagreement.

 

[MGibster]

A DM wears many hats. He or she is the arbiter of rules, the author, or at the very least chief interpreter, of campaigns/adventures, and they role play a score of NPCs ranging from allies to villainous curs to pig farmers unwinding at the inn with a nice ale. So while a DM is also playing the game, I wouldn't describe them as a player. Because their role is much more than that of a player.