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

[prabe]

The answer is obviously in-between and more multifaceted, though I'm not a fan of any game or style of play that promotes the GM as author. If the GM wants to be an author, IMO, they should not be in the hobby of playing cooperative tabletop games but should be writing a book instead.

So, I'm not disagreeing so much as quibbling: I wouldn't be a fan of "play" that promoted the GM as sole author.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Let me explain. If the game is a car, then the loss of a player is like having a flat tire. It's not working identically to how it worked before the flat tire, but the car has not changed. If the DM leaves, you get have to get an entirely new car in order to play.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I'm on team Draggin. Although team Draw and Quarter is also a good one.

 

[nevin]

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


5e Dungeon Master's Guide:


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.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, those are professional players. I would also categorize somebody who plays D&D for cash in front of an audience as a pro player. Pro (read: paid) DMs, not so much, I would say they're more akin to a professional referee rather than a pro player. Not a meaningful distinction, anyway: I'm moving on from the strict definitions discussion.

Referee is one of the smallest roles the DM has. As a DM, I rarely have to make a ruling or tell the players what the rule is. I do, however, constantly play the world and NPCs(other team) as my team interacts with the players' team. I spend much more time playing the game, than I do refereeing it.

 

[nevin]

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

It's pretty clear that at least in 5e, the DM is a player who gets a different role.

so in spite of rule 0 because it says so in the new edition everyone has to accept it? Referee's are not players, DM's are not players. I'm just going to disagree and your only options with me is to agree to disagree. Every argument I've heard revolves around redefining words, or stating that because the new order has redefined something it simply is that way. Nope.

 

[nevin]

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 but then it's a different game with a different GM and that person is in charge. Though IMO only about 1 in 10 people are willing to DM, and only about 1 in 10 of those will do it a second time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

I disagree. The OP cited the PHB provision in the OP, and given we should assume the OP probably reads the sections that they cite (because it is a courteous thing to do, and because the OP is likely super handsome and smart and stuff), the OP was likely aware of it. The DMG is similar- but allow me to illustrate the issue:

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

Compare

"A bunch of players get together to play soccer. If there are sufficient numbers of them, one of the players might take on the referee role."

See what I did there? Is the player shifting roles within the game, or taking on a new title? What is the context of this shift? I mean, we might as well get into a debate about "natural language" in D&D rules, or maybe start discussing Wittgenstein or Gusdorf (if I say "red" does that mean the same thing to you that it does to me?).

But at a less abstract level, this goes to the natural confusion we have given that there are two different terms with two very different meanings that both employ the same word.

To channel myself in fifth grade, answering a vocabular quiz, a player is a a person who plays at something. It doesn't have to be a game. You can have a soccer player, a guitar player, a monopoly player, even an actor can be referred to as a player (and a play is a play). The usage is broad enough that while it has roots in entertainment, it can be used generally. "Watch out for startup company; it will be a major player in anvils soon enough."*

On the other hand, D&D uses the term player in a specific sense, to mean the group of individuals who control PC (player character); in effect, player in this sense is closer to a synonym for "adventurer." Notice the the OP has two sections, titled "Division of Roles" and "The Division of Roles Matters in D&D".

This leads to the final sentence in the OP:
Again, there are other TTRPGs that are built in a different way, but when it comes to D&D, there is a distinction between players and the DM that is useful to maintain, both as a matter of language and in terms of the roles that they play at the table.

That leads to the entire reason for the OP, and the debate in this thread. It's not about quibbling over semantics. It's about the unaddressed claims that come when someone says, "The DM is a player like any other player." There is a lot of normative issues that are behind that simple statement.

Most of them having to do with divisions of authority, and issues of world building, and how people view the three steps of "How To Play" in the PHB, and so on.

So now, contextually and categorically, within the context of D&D, I would say that the DM is not a player. For the reasons listed in the OP and expounded upon the followup posts. But in saying that, what I am saying is that in D&D, there is a distinction between the DM (referee) and the players (adventurers) that is useful to maintain, both as a matter of language and in terms of the roles that they play at the table.



*A DM who is strumming a guitar at the table is a "player," but I don't think that's a very fun or rewarding conversation to have.

 

[Maxperson]

so in spite of rule 0 because it says so in the new edition everyone has to accept it? Referee's are not players, DM's are not players. I'm just going to disagree and your only options with me is to agree to disagree. Every argument I've heard revolves around redefining words, or stating that because the new order has redefined something it simply is that way. Nope.

You're saying up is down and east is west, though. The game explicitly says the DMs are players. You can change it for your game if you are the DM and just make yourself not a player, I suppose. You have no ability to say that I am not a player when I DM, though.

 

[nevin]

You're saying up is down and east is west, though. The game explicitly says the DMs are players. You can change it for your game if you are the DM and just make yourself not a player, I suppose. You have no ability to say that I am not a player when I DM, though.

Yes the rules say the DM is a Player and a referee. Not possible.

Referee: an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play.

player: a person taking part in a sport or game.

You and others are reading the definition of player and saying that because the referee is on the field they are taking part of the game and therefore they are players. But the Definition of Referee precludes that. Just because 5th edition devs have decided up is down and definitions don't matter, doesn't change how the game is played. DM has the power, DM decides framework and makes the rulings on what happens. Not a player. But I'll grant you they are involved in the game.