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

Democratus

Adventurer
Player: A person who pretends to be characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.

DM is a person who pretends to be characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.

Therefore: DM is is a player.

Simple set theory. QED.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Olrox17

Hero
Player: A person who pretends to be characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.

DM is a person who pretends to be characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.

Therefore: DM is is a player.

Simple set theory. QED.
Tuna: an animal that breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes

Shark: an animal that breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes

Therefore: Tunas are sharks
???
Not really.
 

Democratus

Adventurer
Tuna: an animal that breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes

Shark: an animal that breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes

Therefore: Tunas are sharks
???
Not really.

Bad set theory

Fish: An animal that breaths underwater and eats smaller fishes.

Tuna. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.
Shark. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.

Really.

A DM is a subset of "player", which is someone who portrays characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Bad set theory

Fish: An animal that breaths underwater and eats smaller fishes.

Tuna. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.
Shark. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.

Really.

A DM is a subset of "player", which is someone who portrays characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.

I mean, assuming that 1) your definition of player is correct, and 2) your definition of DM is correct, and 3) "set theory" applies, then yes! You have solved the issue that everyone else has missed.

Or it could be that the discussion is not about descriptivist claims and defining terms to one's advantage, but about trying to understand why it is important for people to either call the DM a player, or important for people to not call the DM a player.
 

Olrox17

Hero
Bad set theory

Fish: An animal that breaths underwater and eats smaller fishes.

Tuna. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.
Shark. Breathes underwater and eats smaller fishes - therefore a fish.

Really.

A DM is a subset of "player", which is someone who portrays characters and rolls dice to resolve mechanics.
Well yes, it was deliberately bad.
As far as your own set theory goes, I'd say you've proven that Players and DMs are both tabletop RPG gamers, not necessarily players. Players (capital P) are definitely players (some of them are pro players), and I'd agree the vast majority of DMs are also players, but not all. Not that it matters in the least.
 



Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Indeed. Unless we have agreed upon definitions for Player and DM - which we don't - the whole thread is just mental mastication.

But that's what internet forum threads are for! ;)

I thought (and continue to think) it is an interesting topic because there are groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is a player is self-evident, and also groups of people to whom the idea that a DM is not a player is self-evident.

And the view that you might have is usually (but not always) a proxy for other views; in other words, there tends to be a very strong correlation between the way in which a person might view this "self-evident" statement, and their views on a constellation of other topics.

It's fascinating (beyond the mental gymnastics ... ahem ... of the usual internet forum banter) because people are asserting the rightness of the constellation of their beliefs through asserting the rightness of the supposed "self-evident" proposition.
 

TheSword

Legend
First, let me say that I think that this is a bizarre and unnecessary distraction. This isn't particularly relevant or germane to the topic of the thread, other than to acknowledge that there is a growing number of DMs who get paid for their work. That aside ...

I disagree with pretty much every thing you have written, because I disagree with the assumptions that go into it. The reason why I disagree (and strenuously) is because this rhetoric often unknowingly devalues labor. I don't think you mean to do it, and it comes from a good spot, but it nonetheless does so.

Look at the way you start by classifying different types of work. Running a D&D game (a service) "is not working cleaning shifts at the local motel." ... and so? It's also not slinging french fries, or working in a mine, or being a mime, or working as a rock star, or driving an uber. But you know what it is?

It's work. It's something that you are doing, that you are being paid to do, because if you weren't getting paid to do it ... you would be doing something else. And while some jobs might be more physically taxing (working in a mine, waiter at a busy restaurant) and others more mentally taxing (DMing, designing logos) and others might be ... well, just taxing (toll booth operator) you are being paid for you labor.

And to denigrate the work that people do is far too common, especially in the creative fields. "Oh, we don't need to worry about paying that graphic designer what he wants, after all, he's just an artist and I'm sure he just loves what he is doing, and he's probably middle class and not desperate for cash."

If someone is paid for their work, then it's work. Period. I respect that. To the extent that I am being overly strenuous in stating this, it's because this is a point that I feel very strongly about. People deserve to be paid for their labor, without others saying, "Oh, don't worry, it's just 'fun' for them."
Any devaluation of labor is entirely in your mind. It’s not denigrating creative works to say people get better results than if they enjoy them. You’ve taken 2 + 2 and made a bushel of potatoes.

No one said they don’t deserve to be paid. However it is a fact of life that some jobs are paid less but you do them because you enjoy it. I don’t understand how you can possible argue against this point. It happens in all so sorts of jobs.

The reason this is relevant is that being paid as a DM doesn’t stop you wanting to enjoy that role. In fact I’ll go further and say, I wouldn’t want a DM who wasn’t passionate about the game and enjoying what they were doing, whether paid or not.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Any devaluation of labor is entirely in your mind. It’s not denigrating creative works to say people get better results than if they enjoy them. You’ve taken 2 + 2 and made a bushel of potatoes.

No one said they don’t deserve to be paid. However it is a fact of life that some jobs are paid less but you do them because you enjoy it. I don’t understand how you can possible argue against this point. It happens in all so sorts of jobs.

The reason this is relevant is that being paid as a DM doesn’t stop you wanting to enjoy that role. In fact I’ll go further and say, I wouldn’t want a DM who wasn’t passionate about the game and enjoying what they were doing, whether paid or not.

I really don't understand why you are making this argument.

There are plenty of DMs (as this is a growing field) that are hustling to make money. It's a job. People need to make money.

There was an article last year about a woman who, when unemployed, supported her gender transformation by DMing on-line games because she couldn't get employment through regular means. I know someone who currently works at a Dunkies during the day and makes ends meet by DMing for pay (on-line) at night.

They don't do it because it's fun. They do it because they get paid.

Just like everyone else who works. We work to get paid.

EDIT: given the rise of the so-called "gig economy" and recent issue people have had with the covid-induced downturn, it does seem ... wrong ... to continue to make this argument. I just don't see what your point is. If a person who is working is having fun, that's great. That has no bearing on their payment. And it is certainly not true that "a creative" has to "have fun" to be good; a lot of creative work is drudgery.
 

Remove ads

Top