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

[Maxperson]

But will the game remain the same without a few players? (spoiler: it won't)

And what stops any of the players take over the GM's role, anyway?

Nothing except for perhaps their own personal reasons, but it won't be the same game.

 

[Campbell]

Nothing except for perhaps their own personal reasons, but it won't be the same game.

It's not a very interesting game if the absence of any given player character does not fundamentally mean it is a different game.

 

[Aldarc]

My assertion: In D&D, the DM is NOT a player.

5e Player's Handbook (p. 5):

"One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM). the game's lead storyteller and referee."

5e Dungeon Master's Guide:

"The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story." (4)

"As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role." (5)

Per the rulebooks, the DM is considered to be a player, albeit a specialized one. Categorically speaking, however, a specialized type of player is nonetheless a player.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not "baggage", just context, which was my initial point. I also stated that "...the GM is very much not a Player..." (in my most preferred games) which is quite different that what you are saying I literally said, even if it is quite similar.

If your whole argument is that the DM isn’t a capital-P Player (as in, the player role in the game of Dungeons and Dragons referred to as “player”), you don’t need to bring up your play preferences to defend that position. The DM isn’t a capital-P Player because they’re a DM. Those are two different player roles. It doesn’t matter what your play preferences is are, the two different player roles have different names. Also, literally no one is arguing that the DM is a capital-P Player.

Ok, I can understand the point of this much better than the ipso facto argument. But I would make a few points;

Having fun isn't predicated on being a "player", at all. You can have fun being a GM in a game, watching a game, or freeform play outside of a game, heck you can have fun working.

Obviously. You can have fun doing all sorts of things. I never claimed otherwise.

GMing doesn't have to be about having fun, in a particular moment or even overall. It can be about delving into serious issues, it can be therapy, it can paid labour.

Certainly it can be. So could being a Player. All of those things (well, except paid labor I guess) are forms of engagement, which we generally shorthand to “fun”.

Maybe I should just stop there and get to the larger point; "The GM should have fun because they are a player" just isn't very compelling to me in this context. "Fun" and "player" just aren't that inextricably linked.

“The DM should have fun because they are a player” isn’t my argument. In fact it’s a complete inversion of my argument, which is that the DM should be considered a player, (not a Player - that’s a different player role than DM) because they’re there to have fun too. Or, if you want to get pedantic about my use of the word “fun,” they are seeking some form of engagement from the game.

People, probably, who knows. Earlier in this post you will see where the distinction was lost, it's not hard even when the subject of discussion. Seriously though, what I think is important is why somebody thinks it's useful to say the GM is a "player", even if they are not a "Player", or the other way around. My point is that the ipso facto definition isn't useful here.

No one is, and the two things are only getting confused because one side of this argument is stubbornly refusing to accept that the DM is ipso facto a player (not a Player, that’s a different player role than DM). If we can just accept the premise of the original argument - that the DM is a player (not a Player, that’s a different player role than DM) in the game of Dungeons and Dragons, we can finally get on to the actual point of contention; namely whether or not the DM being a player (not a Player, that’s a different player role than DM) in the game of Dungeons and Dragons means that the other players (namely, the Players) ought to have a say in the worldbuilding process. For the record, my position is that it doesn’t.

 

[Rikka66]

It's not a very interesting game if the absence of any given player character does not fundamentally mean it is a different game.

I have had and do have players who's absence in any given session is obviously felt, and I have had and do have players who could drop out completely and it would hardly change a thing.

 

[Aldarc]

Thank you for illustrating the root of the linguistic confusion.

Imagine a world where there are two breeds of dogs. The first breed is called collies. And the second breed is called... dogs.

So you could say that a collie is a dog, but a collie clearly isn't a dog. That's the problem. End of thread.

I suspect when Gygax created the term "Dungeon Master" for his own specialized role, the other players were not terribly thrilled with either being called "Player Character Players" or "Dungeon Submissives".

 

[Imaculata]

1. I think that the player characters and the NPCs might be on different teams and have different goals, but my goals are not the same as my NPCs' goals. My dragon wants all of the PCs to die in a fiery death, I do not.

As a DM myself, I am firmly on team dragon.

 

[zarionofarabel]

And there's a non-zero number of people who respond to suggestions that GMs ought to listen to players and talk things through, rather than make flat summary refusals, as if folks wanted the GM to be a living CPU.

And yet, I feel as though I have conversed with posters on these forums who really do think the GM is there only to serve their needs. The word "compromise" gets bandied about alot, though the comprise always seems to be to just give the player what they want. Or even better, to completely alter the premise of the campaign so it no longer resembles what the GM originally wanted, so the player can get what they want. To me that really does make me think that certain players think the GMs only job is to serve their needs with no consideration for the GM's desires. I have played in a campaign before where the GM is not really interested in the premise, and it makes for some crappy gaming. Perhaps those players should think for a moment about the human facet of a GMs existence and work with them on creating an experience they both can enjoy.

 

[Imaculata]

If either the DM or the players are not having fun playing the game, then something is wrong. But in the end they are all players.

 

[Aldarc]

And yet, I feel as though I have conversed with posters on these forums who really do think the GM is there only to serve their needs.

And yet, I feel as though I have conversed with posters on these forums who really do think that as the GM they are god almighty and worthy of veneration.