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

[Oofta]

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.

While I wouldn't work if I didn't get paid, that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy my job. At least a lot of the time.

 

[TheSword]

The clue is in the description Role Playing Game.

Player can be seen as someone who plays a game. It can also be seen as some one who plays parts (in a theatrical sense). Both cases apply equally to DMs and Players.

The suggestion that DMs aren’t playing a game is none sense. It’s all play. Always has been, always will be.

I say it again Role Playing Game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The clue is in the description Role Playing Game.

I appreciate the bolding. I hadn't noticed that before.

This is what I wrote, just above:

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.

I happen to think that the more interesting conversations are what happen when you get past the point of asserting the self-evident part, but other people may have different opinions.

 

[TheSword]

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.

I’m amazed this is a hill you want to die on.

I know the article, you’re talking about Bethany Dillingham. Here’s a quote from her Twitter.

Tis I, the glorious dungeon master of #ALandofDarkDreams! This is my baby, my love, and my passion. Come see me guide these players through the horrors of the Aluenara Forest as they face off against a Black Dragon.

I think she enjoys what she’s doing. Just a hunch.

It is an incontrovertible fact that people are better at almost every job if they enjoy it.

 

[TheSword]

I appreciate the bolding. I hadn't noticed that before.

This is what I wrote, just above:

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.

I happen to think that the more interesting conversations are what happen when you get past the point of asserting the self-evident part, but other people may have different opinions.

That’s because the people claiming DMs aren’t players are making assertions without evidence. Whereas those saying they are, are using common sense, standard definitions and statements that match reality.

Your original post is flawed from the outset. The Players Handbook for instance is referenced as often by the DM as the other players for info on spells, rules, and abilities.

 

[Shardstone]

Guess I, as perma-DM, have never played D&D a day in my life, since as DM I am not a player. Strange.

Wonder what its like, playing games instead of just...uh..."not-player" playing games.

 

[TheSword]

Let’s extrapolate this out...

Is the murderer in a murder mystery game a player? yes

What about the ghost in the board game Mysterium? They aren’t in competition with the other players. And yet they would still be considered a player of the game.

Would we consider the story teller in the Dungeon Master board game Hero Quest one of the players? I think we would.

The common theme... they’re all playing a game.

 

[DemoMonkey]

The DM is a player.

The DM is not a Player.

I have the oddest feeling of déjà vu.

 

[DemoMonkey]

The DM is a player.

The DM is not a Player.

I have the oddest feeling of déjà vu.

 

[Wolfram stout]

I appreciate the bolding. I hadn't noticed that before.

This is what I wrote, just above:

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.

I happen to think that the more interesting conversations are what happen when you get past the point of asserting the self-evident part, but other people may have different opinions.

Fair point. As one who believes the DM is a player, what other views would you think I hold? This part I do find very interesting.