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

[Laurefindel]

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.

This.

In sports and in all events I can think of, a referee is a judge of the rules, an impartial third party between two (or more) competing teams. D&D isn’t about competing amongst players or other teams. If anything, the DM is the competing opposition. But they also play on the players’ teams. Reducing the DM's role to that of a referee is both misrepresenting and misleading, especially when using sports analogies.

The closest analogy I can find is in gambling; whether the croupier is a player is indeed a debatable question. But when asked what they do, croupiers rarely say "I play cards". I'm a DM, and I play D&D. that makes me a D&D player. This is mostly in virtue of D&D being a hobby.

D&D is an asymmetrical game and the role of DM is different from that of player running PCs. Like hide-and-seek. You’ve got a seeker and a few other trying to hide from them. I guess you could say there are seeking-players and hiding-players. Similarly, D&D has DM-players and player-players.

DMs have a different role from that labelled as "player". While this excludes the DM from the role of "player", it doesn't disqualify the DM from the concept of "playing the game" in the same sense as those filling the role of "player". I don't see a conflict here.

 

[Maxperson]

This.

In sports and in all events I can think of, a referee is a judge of the rules, an impartial third party between two (or more) competing teams. D&D isn’t about competing amongst players or other teams. If anything, the DM is the competing opposition. But they also play on the players’ teams. Reducing the DM's role to that of a referee is both misrepresenting and misleading, especially when using sports analogies.

I don't like to view myself as an oppositional team, since all I have to do is say, "You're all dead." and I win. Rather we are two teams competing together to accomplish the same goal. Have fun. I'm the other team playing, but not in opposition, even if some of my team members sometimes do compete against the players in combat.

 

[Aldarc]

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."

The language here of "other player" also still suggests that the GM is still a player. You may prefer a distinction that denies the GM as a player, which may reflect viewpoints of older editions of GM as impartial referee, but I think the current trend is increasingly viewing the GM is a type of player who engages in the play of this game.

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?

See what? You make the same mistake of a false comparison to a sports referee that multiple prior people have already discussed? Sure. I saw what you 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?).

If one player plays the singular role of Dracula in the board game "Dracula" while the other participants play vampire hunters, does this mean that the Dracula player is not a player?

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".

I think that D&D does not use "player" in a specific sense, but, rather, as metonymic shorthand for "player character players."

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.

It's fantastic double-speak to claim that this thread is not about quibbling over semantics while quibbling over semantics and playing word games. I'm fine if it is a debate about semantics, but at least be honest that this is what you are doing and which @Umbran rightfully called you out 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.

Contextually and categorically, you are still evidently wrong as per the actual citations of the D&D rulebooks themselves, but you are still free to toot your own horn and pretend that you aren't a player.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's fantastic double-speak to claim that this thread is not about quibbling over semantics while quibbling over semantics and playing word games. I'm fine if it is a debate about semantics, but at least be honest that this is what you are doing and which @Umbran rightfully called you out on.


Contextually and categorically, you are still evidently wrong as per the actual citations of the D&D rulebooks themselves, but you are still free to toot your own horn and pretend that you aren't a player.

Well, you are certainly neither interesting, nor fun to converse with. I don't engage with people that make personal comments.

 

[nevin]

Snarf Zagyg said:
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.

Contextually and categorically, you are still evidently wrong as per the actual citations of the D&D rulebooks themselves, but you are still free to toot your own horn and pretend that you aren't a player.


And yet by the definitions of the words per dictionary, that thing that is supposed to standardize language so we can have discussions and understand what people are saying he is dead on.

I'm done with this discussion because it's just you explaining to us that the meaning of the word's Player and Referee have been redefined by Wizards of the Coast and hasbro. I assume they bought Websters and get to define the english language now?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Like Quote Reply
Report

 

[Laurefindel]

I don't like to view myself as an oppositional team, since all I have to do is say, "You're all dead." and I win. Rather we are two teams competing together to accomplish the same goal. Have fun. I'm the other team playing, but not in opposition, even if some of my team members sometimes do compete against the players in combat.

I'm with you there,

But the DM is there to provide players with challenges and opposition, which was said mostly to stress the fact that the DM, as a referee, is not an impartial third party.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"the meaning of the word's Player and Referee have been redefined by Wizards of the Coast and hasbro. I assume they bought Websters and get to define the english language now?"

You say that as if they wouldn't release an entire Spelling Bee themed adventure path as well as a Magic cycle based in "Grammaria" if they thought there was money in it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

And, unless you redefine words and state that because the old order has defined something it simply is that way the DM is not a referee unless D&D is played like Calvinball.

The job of the referee is to be impartial and bring very little to the table. The referee certainly does not represent the entire opposing team and take their actions for them. The DM is not that - they play the majority of pieces in play at any given time and they can change the rules on the fly, something a referee in the sense the word is normally used can't (or at the very least shouldn't).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"the meaning of the word's Player and Referee have been redefined by Wizards of the Coast and hasbro. I assume they bought Websters and get to define the english language now?"

You say that as if they wouldn't release an entire Spelling Bee themed adventure path as well as a Magic cycle based in "Grammaria" if they thought there was money in it.

I would totally play a campaign in Grammaria!

"I am Sir Pedant of the Order of the Dangling Participles, and I am here to split that infinitive!"

 

[Olrox17]

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.

I was specifically talking about paid DMs.
I've never been paid to DM, and I never paid anyone to DM for me, but if I ever happened to pay a talented DM to run a game for me, my expectations would be a lot different than if one my childhood buddied did it for free, instead.

I would expect a paid DM to deliver a good, satisfying show and a fun experience for us, the clients. I would not expect them to "play" and have fun.