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

[Charlaquin]

I’d like to unpack the winning and losing thing a bit more. Look at an adventure like Curse of Strahd. The adventurers’ goal is to collect the fortunes of Ravenloft and defeat Strahd. I think most players would agree they’ve “won” or “beaten” Curse of Strahd if they succeed in doing that. If the party gets TPKed, or if Strahd succeeds in all of his goals of marrying Ireena, killing Van Richten, and making one of the PCs his successor, I think most players would agree they “lost,” though they may decide to try again with new characters (and I suppose a new villain if one of the PCs did become his successor). Win or lose, a story will emerge from the conflict between the players goals and Strahd’s goals, so hopefully everyone will have had a good time, even if they lost.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Now you're getting it.

Unfortunately the space created for players to be Rules Lawyers allowed for DMs to get more into the player side with the dreaded ...

...DMPC.

 

[Argyle King]

I believe the DM shouldn't be a "player" in the context that the DM is playing to win versus the PCs or has a vested interested in skewing results. (That being said, I do believe the DM can be playing an antagonist character who is against the players, but the trick there is to have a solid barrier between DM knowledge and in-character knowledge.)

However, I do believe the DM is a player in the sense that the DM should be enjoying the game.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Um, no?

I mean, maybe for some people, at some tables, at some times?

But others prefer that stories are emergent; the fun is that the stories aren't crafted!

Preach!

I have no use for “telling my story.” I may want to play my character or set up the world, but the fun is what happens when it is set in motion.

I cringe when I hear Crawford talk about that idea.

me and my pals are playing a game. I don’t want to know the outcome. As I keep playing I am rethinking the need for my detailed character histories. I like having some personality and increasingly without perfect knowledge of how it came about.

during play, personality and story emerges.

I want there to be a real threat to my perfectly crafted ideal. Sh*t happens. Characters can die. I did not write that in my story but it can happen.

different people play for different reasons.

And to the OP: this is all just about culture shift and feelings about authority. Ages past you played with your buds, they tried to be fair, rooted for you designed cool scenarios.

now? I get butthurt if I don’t get to have enough of the writing credit for the world? Valid. Just sort of foreign to my gaming culture.

 

[prabe]

Um, no?

I mean, maybe for some people, at some tables, at some times?

But others prefer that stories are emergent; the fun is that the stories aren't crafted!

I think some of the problem is that there isn't a super-great word in English for the creation of emergent stories. Heck, English doesn't even have a graceful way to phrase it (as the previous sentence demonstrates). I think that's why people default to verbs like "tell" or "craft" even though those verbs don't exactly convey what's happening.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well, they aren’t called the same thing. One role is called “Dungeon Master” and the other is called “player(s)”. Just like in Android Netrunner you have the Corporation and the Runner. In baseball you have the pitcher, the catcher, the 1st/2nd/3rd basemen, the infielders, the outfielders. You generally refer to players by their role, rather than by the general term player. Again, the fact that in D&D one of the roles is called “player” and the other is not does create unnecessary ambiguity, I agree. But talking pure game theory here, the DM is a role someone playing the game of D&D takes on.

Maybe you don't like the player/referee analogy from sports (although that is what we said in the pre-history of TTRPGs).

Let me put it this way: you can play football without a referee. You can’t play it without players in all the necessary positions. You can’t play Android Netrunner without a Corporation and a Runner. You can’t play D&D without a DM and at least one player.

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.

On the other hand, lots of people will say, “I played so much D&D over my vacation” when they we’re actually DMing the whole time. Or they’ll say “I really miss playing D&D” when what they want to do is DM. Because DMing is playing D&D. It’s playing it in a different role than when you play it as a single character, but it’s still playing.

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

What muddles the conversation is the fact that the non-DM players are just called “players.”

 

[prabe]

On the other hand, lots of people will say, “I played so much D&D over my vacation” when they we’re actually DMing the whole time. Or they’ll say “I really miss playing D&D” when what they want to do is DM. Because DMing is playing D&D. It’s playing it in a different role than when you play it as a single character, but it’s still playing.

What muddles the conversation is the fact that the non-DM players are just called “players.”

It probably doesn't help that, as you say, people from time to time refer to DMing as "playing D&D."

 

[Argyle King]

"I'm not a player; I just crit a lot."
~ Big Pun, battlemaster​

 

[Charlaquin]

It probably doesn't help that, as you say, people from time to time refer to DMing as "playing D&D."

But see, I think it’s accurate to do so. DMing is playing D&D. It isn’t playing it in the same way as playing a single character, but it is still playing the game, unlike what a referee does in sports.

 

[Ancalagon]

Preach!

I have no use for “telling my story.” I may want to play my character or set up the world, but the fun is what happens when it is set in motion.

I cringe when I hear Crawford talk about that idea.

me and my pals are playing a game. I don’t want to know the outcome. As I keep playing I am rethinking the need for my detailed character histories. I like having some personality and increasingly without perfect knowledge of how it came about.

during play, personality and story emerges.

I want there to be a real threat to my perfectly crafted ideal. Sh*t happens. Characters can die. I did not write that in my story but it can happen.

different people play for different reasons.

And to the OP: this is all just about culture shift and feelings about authority. Ages past you played with your buds, they tried to be fair, rooted for you designed cool scenarios.

now? I get butthurt if I don’t get to have enough of the writing credit for the world? Valid. Just sort of foreign to my gaming culture.

Some would say that "crafting a story" can be done via emergent play...