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

[Charlaquin]

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 ....).

Asymmetrical games are a very normal thing. In Android Netrunner, one player is the corporation and the other player is the hacker. They use different cards and play by different rules, but they are both playing Android Netrunner. In Fury of Dracula, one player is Dracula and the other players try to avoid being eaten by them. This kind of thing is all over the place in tabletop gaming, and the idea that you find it “Orwellian” is baffling to me.

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."

Yeah, one of the player roles being named Player certainly does create unnecessary ambiguity when discussing D&D as a game. It would probably be better to call the players who take on the role of Players as Adventurers or something instead. But from a game design standpoint, the DM is absolutely a role one of the people playing the asymmetrical game of D&D must take on.

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.

As others have pointed out, this analogy falls really flat, because the referee in a game of sports’ only role is to hand out penalties for rules violations in a symmetrical competitive game. D&D is an asymmetrical collaborative game, and doesn’t have a punitive structure. A better analogy would be like the dealer in blackjack or the banker in Monopoly, if instead of controlling a piece on the board the banker set the order of the Chance and Community Chest decks.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Yes, this is the overall goal of play on more of a meta-level. But moment to moment, a player is making decisions with the intent of successfully completing the adventure objectives and keeping their avatar in play.

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

Well, that’s just playing to avoid losing rather than playing to win. You can’t win at sports by only playing defense, and you can’t win at D&D by only protecting your character’s wellbeing. You have to take risks if you want to complete your adventure objectives, and story emerges from the conflict between your various goals and the goals of the monsters and NPCs the DM controls.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

I guess if that's what you put into it going in? It's certainly a playstyle rising in popularity these days.

I'd argue that D&D's system design isn't really built to accommodate that though. It isn't hostile to it either, it's just a big fat blank. Empty space that permits both collaborative storytelling and tactical wargaming with little regard to story, but not really built to encourage facilitate either beyond the most basic level.

Though in regards to the existing GM-player dynamic, I definitely agree with you when you say

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

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure I care about the labels, but I will say that D&D is designed to be asymmetrical. The DM makes the final call on rules disputes, typically controls the world and most NPCs.

That doesn't mean that the DM can't or shouldn't listen to the players or solicit advice but as it states in the intro of the DMG the DM is the primary creative force behind the game, the architect, storyteller and referee. Being a good DM IMHO includes listening to the players, and I give a lot of leeway on how PCs interact with the rule but the buck stops with the DM whether I'm DMing or not.

D&D is not designed to be a democracy. It is a collaborative storytelling game, but someone has to establish the backdrop and enforce the rules of the game. That someone is the DM.

 

[Weiley31]

On a more series note(surprising I know), the DM isn't a player "per se" by the rules of DND, but the DM also has the same right to have fun just like the players.(when everything goes normal and you aren't dealing with toxic players/DMs.)

That said, I think it requires cooperation on both the DM and player's part. And that ALSO includes perhaps players not getting so hostile if they have to follow a path or story for a tiny bit. I hear so many people complaining a lot about Tyranny of Dragons opening and Out of The Abyss where its like "well why would my character just jumping jack into a village attacked by a dragon? What cutscene? Your such a railroader this dm sucks dragons!" or "I see no reason for me to stop the Demon Lords in Out of The Abyss once I escape. What you mean the world ends? Your such a railroader and this dm sucks dragons!"

I mean.....................maybe a LITTLE suspension of disbelief or cooperation people? Why play the module at all after the dm pretty much explained what the premise is and did everything they were supposed to before the players agreed to it?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Asymmetrical games are a very normal thing. In Android Netrunner, one player is the corporation and the other player is the hacker. They use different cards and play by different rules, but they are both playing Android Netrunner. In Fury of Dracula, one player is Dracula and the other players try to avoid being eaten by them. This kind of thing is all over the place in tabletop gaming, and the idea that you find it “Orwellian” is baffling to me.

Admittedly, Orwellian is strong language. I will work harder! ... to find better language.

Nevertheless, the idea of calling completely different roles ... the same thing .... is bizarre. Maybe you don't like the player/referee analogy from sports (although that is what we said in the pre-history of TTRPGs).

But to say that the DM is a player is just ... it's weird, because no one, outside of certain rarified conversations about the game, uses that terminology. In other words, if you're sitting at the table, pretty much any D&D table, you talk about the DM and the players, not the Player and the Players.

So I don't understand this insistence to muddle what is a pretty self explanatory term.

 

[Minigiant]

The DM is a referee.

But in the absence of other DMs, a challenge, and a instant replay system, the DM and players must share at least a little bit of each role.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The DM is a referee.

But in the absence of other DMs, a challenge, and a instant replay system, the DM and players must share at least a little bit of each role.

Who needs an instant replay system when we have Rules Lawyers?

 

[embee]

What is one of the most iconic images of AD&D? That's right ... you know it. Otus. Trampier. DM SCREEN.

I smell a marketing opportunity.

So you know how there is an infinite variety of both official and third-party DM screens, often to cross-promote some adventure or another? Make one that is devoid of that completely but that gets to the root of the matter.

How?

Make a DM screen that is vertical black and white stripes.

Because as conceived, the DM is the referee.

The ref doesn't block field goals in football. The ref doesn't pull down rebounds in basketball. The ref doesn't check players into the boards in hockey. The ref doesn't slide tackle in soccer.

The referee is not a player.

Zebra stripe the DM screen. That should help clear up any confusion.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd argue that D&D's system design isn't really built to accommodate that though. It isn't hostile to it either, it's just a big fat blank. Empty space that permits both collaborative storytelling and tactical wargaming with little regard to story, but not really built to encourage facilitate either beyond the most basic level.

Ok, I'll rephrase it a little bit. Both players and GM want to have that vague fun that game designers try to quantify for god knows how long.

Whatever the specific group's definition of fun is, both players and GM need to put effort into achieving it, otherwise... Well, otherwise they won't have one.