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

[Charlaquin]

That isn't something that's inherently good or worth keeping that way.


Or the group agrees on another ruling, that makes more sense and works better.


I guess a centralized authority may be a good idea in a game where you can win or lose... But that's not the case here, isn't it?

Unpopular opinion: You can absolutely win or lose D&D. Well, if you’re in the player role, anyway. The players win when they successfully complete the adventure (and often then continue to a new adventure). They lose when their characters die or when the adventure becomes impossible to successfully complete (and often then create a new character or start a new adventure.) Though, due to the asymmetrical nature of the game, the DM has different goals; for them it’s a perpetual game, and the goal is just to keep it going. They lose when the game ends.

 

[prabe]

They lose when the game ends.

Sorry, going to quibble: The DM can lose if the game ends before everyone at the table is ready for it to. I don't think that, for example, a TPK necessarily means the DM lost, is where I'm coming from--it doesn't necessarily mean the DM won, either, of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm going to keep calling the GM a player. It's an asymmetrical game. That's fine, everybody can still be a player even if not all their rolls are the same.

I think that the role of a DM is VERY different from a referee in sports.

1. In sports there are two opposing teams using predetermined rules. One team will win the other team will lose (or they tie). The ref is there to make sure the winner is determined fairly. This is nothing like D&D. There is only one team (and the DM is on that team). The rules exist only to provide structure for that story, and the only way you win is too have fun.

2. When I GM, I am not the sole arbiter of the rules. I can't remember them all, and when I do, I'll ask my players what if they remember (last session it was the rules for shoving). If we're in the middle of play and I overlook a rule and the other players remind me of it, that's great (shouldn't that NPC spellcaster make a concentration check?) If I have to make an ad hoc ruling, I sometimes throw out options and ask the players which one they think makes sense.

3. In sports, breaking the rules is a punitive system. If you cheat, you can take a penalty, and that can be part of the games. In high school basket ball, I had a coach say it could be worth committing a foul if it kept the other team from making an easy shot, since the penalty was less severe. The is no penalty for breaking the rules in D&D, other than possibly people being upset with you for breaking the social contract.

I mostly agree with your assessment, but I have two points of contention with it.

1: The players and the DM are not on the same team. They have different play goals, which frequently put their various game pieces into conflict. Certainly the DM can be a fan of the players, and I think it’s a mark of a good DM that they play to make the PCs heroes, rather than to defeat the PCs. But they’re definitely on different teams.

2. You may choose not to act as sole arbiter of the rules, and that’s absolutely fine. But, it is within your prescribed role as DM to act as sole arbiter of the rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

See, I believe the DM is a player, but I don’t think that belief has anything to do with collaborative worldbuilding. Sometimes the world is built by the author of a published setting. Sometimes the world is built by the DM. Sometimes the world is built by the DM and the players collaboratively. In all three cases, the DM and the players are participating in an asymmetrical game, with the DM in one role and the rest of the players in another.

I am not one to stand on useless descriptivist posturing, but I can't square the first part I bolded with the last part. It's almost Orwellian (All players are equal, but some players are more equal than others ....).

I get the impulse. Everyone is "playing" at a game. But when the roles are so profoundly different, and when people use the term "player" to mean "not the DM" then it makes no sense to say that the "DM is player."

In the same way that it makes no sense (to me) to say that the referee in a soccer match is a player. Yes, they are all "playing" in the sense that they are all on the pitch, and they are all running up and down, and they are all "part of the game," and many referees are also players (and vice versa) at different times ... but it would be profoundly weird to say "I believe that the soccer referee is a player" because the roles are just different.

 

[Weiley31]

Oh yeah? Well the players aren't players too!

 

[loverdrive]

1: The players and the DM are not on the same team. They have different play goals, which frequently put their various game pieces into conflict. Certainly the DM can be a fan of the players, and I think it’s a mark of a good DM that they play to make the PCs heroes, rather than to defeat the PCs. But they’re definitely on different teams.

I can't agree, honestly. Both players and GM have the same goal: to craft a cool memorable story.

Clinging to your character and desperately wanting them to always be safe and unharmed is... Not the best player's behaviour.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, going to quibble: The DM can lose if the game ends before everyone at the table is ready for it to. I don't think that, for example, a TPK necessarily means the DM lost, is where I'm coming from--it doesn't necessarily mean the DM won, either, of course.

Yeah, I’m not entirely satisfied with the idea of the game ending being a loss condition for the DM, as some games have a predetermined end point, and reaching it doesn’t feel like a loss for the DM. But my broader point that the DM doesn’t really try to win or lose, but rather tries to keep the game going still works, I think.

 

[Weiley31]

Player: You are the Sole Arbiter of the rules and what happens.

Dm: So any who in today's game of Tyranny of Dragons, a dragon attacks the village at the start and you-

Player: MOOOOOOOM THE DM IS RAILROADING US INTO A MADE UP STORY!!!

Dm's Mom: For the last time Steward, when your playing dnd at this house, I'm not your mom.

Player: Yeah bu-

Dm's Mom after pimp slapping Steward:Roll for damage.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I mostly agree with your assessment, but I have two points of contention with it.

1: The players and the DM are not on the same team. They have different play goals, which frequently put their various game pieces into conflict. Certainly the DM can be a fan of the players, and I think it’s a mark of a good DM that they play to make the PCs heroes, rather than to defeat the PCs. But they’re definitely on different teams.

2. You may choose not to act as sole arbiter of the rules, and that’s absolutely fine. But, it is within your prescribed role as DM to act as sole arbiter of the rules.

I agree that we are mostly on the same page. I think it's a matter of perspective.

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. Further, I'd argue the same applies to the players and their PCs. The PCs would probably prefer it if the dragon stopped terrorizing the country side and left everybody alone, but that is not what the players want. I think what both I and the other players want is a knock-down drag out fight where the dragon seems like it might crush them all, but the PCs rally and slay it. That's our shared goal, so that's why I say we're on the same team.

2. I acknowledge that there are others who play differently (that's why I used first person for that point and third person for the others. But I also think it's a very valid play style, which I think is ignored by the OP and those who argue the GM is just an "impartial referee."

Could you image a referee saying, "Hey guys, what do you think about using hand in soccer? Should we make a house rule that says everybody can use hands? Would that nerf goalies?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can't agree, honestly. Both players and GM have the same goal: to craft a cool memorable story.

Clinging to your character and desperately wanting them to always be safe and unharmed is... Not the best player's behaviour.

Um, no?

I mean, maybe for some people, at some tables, at some times?

But others prefer that stories are emergent; the fun is that the stories aren't crafted!