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

[Campbell]

My experience over 40 years of playing RPGs, and playing with somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50-60 people in that time, is that around a third of the people who play are just there for the beer and pretzels socializing. Many don't own and haven't read the rules. Some are passive, and don't initiate a whole lot beyond doing the standard things their character does, and maybe cracking a few jokes. They barely have the bandwidth to know and run their PC, let alone world-build or engage in a deliberate collaboration to craft a narrative. This doesn't make them bad people to have at the table. They're my friends, and they're enjoying themselves and having fun. A whole table of people who need to be guided and prompted all the time would be a drag. But usually there are a couple players who are dynamic and help steer the ship.

I don't really understand the desire to impart playing a tabletop game with high ideals like 'social equity.' We're friends sitting around a table having a laugh. Achieving some ideal of equity and participation playing D&D seems as pointless as it would be achieving equity going mountain-biking, having a BBQ, or playing poker. Any group of people varies - often dramatically - in how engaged and invested they are in any given activity. I don't see why we should expect RPGs to be any different.

I do not think social equity is some high ideal. I think a shared purpose and striving for relatively equitable social relationships is important for any healthy social activity. I will not deeply engage and put energy into something if the people I am playing with aren't going to vibe off it and put in the same effort. If the game is casual let it be casual, but let's just chill together. If we're going to dive deep let's do that too. At the end of the day I just do not see this as different from the expectations from a serious poker game compared to a friendly game.

I have a fair number of friends. Including a significant amount that play board games and roleplaying games. Just because we're friends does not mean we need to do everything together. I have OSR buddies that are not a good fit for my character driven games. One of my friends who hates more gamist OSR play. I play Diplomacy with a group of people that can get pretty cut throat. It's not a great idea to involve more casual players. I have some friends that I would never play more competitive video games with. It's fine. We do other stuff together.

It's cool to have a more chill game if that's what your doing, but that makes deep engagement less rewarding and like socially feasible. When everyone is trying to have their own fun we do not really get to have fun together.

 

[robus]

If I was getting paid to DM, I would feel much more pressure to deliver a top-notch product, and I would prioritize the group's fun over mine every single time. Heck, I would not think about my own fun at all! Work is work.

I’m reading a book called Humankind (by Rutger Bregman) and he explores the concept of intrinsic motivation and how actually getting paid to do something you do for love takes the joy out of it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’m reading a book called Humankind (by Rutger Bregman) and he explores the concept of intrinsic motivation and how actually getting paid to do something you do for love takes the joy out of it.

When I was young (sometime around the Pliocene), there was the advice given that, "Take the thing you love best and make it your hobby and the thing you love second-best and make it your job; because you don't want to ruin the thing you love the most."

EDIT: I hope I have that right; it was one of those high school graduation platitudes I ignored at the time, but stuck in my head.

 

[robus]

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.

As the perma-ghost in Mysterium I have to say the fun tapers off after a few games.

Edit: meaning the fun aspect of the playing has gone.

 

[robus]

When I was young (sometime around the Pliocene), there was the advice given that, "Take the thing you love best and make it your hobby and the thing you love second-best and make it your job; because you don't want to ruin the thing you love the most."

EDIT: I hope I have that right; it was one of those high school graduation platitudes I ignored at the time, but stuck in my head.

I loved computer programming as a teen and in college, but now I no longer program just for the fun of it. I occasionally get to do some fun programming, but it’s a side-effect not the goal.

 

[TheSword]

As the perma-ghost in Mysterium I have to say the fun tapers off after a few games.

Edit: meaning the fun aspect of the playing has gone.

Lol. Yes but it tapers off slightly slower than for the players who are left thinking what the hell is that picture supposed to mean!

 

[pemerton]

Depends on how you play. In Traveller, "referee" is the title given to the Dungeon Master analogue.

I often describe myself as a referee, especially in the context of refereeing Traveller. It doesn't mean I think my role is anything like a referee or umpire in competitive sports.

Any story that arises does so in hindsight, unless the GM is running a pre-scripted plot on a hard rail.

This claim is false. I play RPGs in which stories arise not in hindsight but in the moment of play, and there is no railroading.

There's a whole approach to RPGing that aims to do this - it falls under the label "story now".

You may not be familiar with such RPGing, but that would be odd given you've participated in dozens of threads that discuss them and the techniques associated with them.