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

[Snarf Zagyg]

So while a DM is also playing the game, I wouldn't describe them as a player. Because their role is much more than that of a player.

I would say that it's more like unpaid labor.

Except in those places where you can get paid. Some DMs are making ... woah ... some good scratch for a side gig.

You know what they say? Cash rules everything around me, c.r.e.a.m get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all

 

[Sacrosanct]

But, that dodges the real question - what does it MEAN to have a different role, especially when you admit that, literally speaking, they are playing too?

Specifically, in terms of those other discussions - does having that different role give a GM entitlements, or should the GM be considered on similar footing in negotiations of what the table should be like.

When playing a video game, the software runs the game. It controls the plot and all of the NPCs and creatures. It reacts to player actions.

But do you consider the software a player in the game?

But either way, and more to the point, D&D defines what a player is and what a DM is. There is no guessing here; it's been provided to us. I mean, what does NPC stand for? And who controls NPCs?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, and when someone says; "The GM is not a Player" a response of; "Do they not PLAY this game you speak of?" seems to be an great way to sidestep any sort of interesting distinction. If someone is pushing the point that the GM is more similar to the players and thus needs to be called a Player too, that's a thing. Arguing that the GM must be called a player because they engage in a game seems pointless and ignores the larger context of how our language often works, IMO.

Anyways, in my most preferred games the GM is very much not a Player, and certainly not just another player. I prefer games with lots of distasteful stuff like things the exist within the world that did not emerge in play, where I can just put myself in the shoes of a charachter and not worry about what makes a good story, where I can feel like the world is a place that I can attempt anything but seems internally consistent and not being created/shaped by the players out of character, etc. Games with no real preconcieved plot, but a bunch of stuff for the PCs to interact with. So, somebody can't really just take over and run that game, they can run a different one that is similar.

Sorry, but none of what you describe here sounds like it would preclude the DM being a player.

 

[Guest User]

There is no expectation of a democratic vote. You can run it that way if you want, I've never seen it or heard of it in real life.

Oofta the quoted text I was responding to stated "It is not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees". So you are correct it is not subject to majoritarian votes.

The author of the quoted text, intended that any objection by a single participant in a game would scuttle the rule change.

If Gary Gygax, (kinda a big deal in these parts), was the author of the text...then a co-creator of the game, is advocating that players have veto power.

When playing a video game, the software runs the game. It controls the plot and all of the NPCs and creatures. It reacts to player actions.

The software is acting as the dice in a CRPG, and executing the rules. The behavior of the monsters, the actual rules of any game are designed, by humans.

The american philosopher John Searle, tackles this in his seminal work: The Chinese Room thought experiment.

CRPG software only executes code, it does not 'understand' nor participate in the storytelling. A CRPG DM makes no adjustments on the fly, and simple excludes and precludes any actions it lacks a script for.

A CRPG DM will not allow a player to talk to a random stranger in a crowded marketplace, unless a human supplied it code to handle the interaction.

A human DM that forbade talking to a stranger in a crowded marketplace, is at risk of breaking immersion in the shared fantasy. A DM that no one will play with is neither a player nor an arbiter. They are a RPG Onanist.

 

[happyhermit]

Sorry, but none of what you describe here sounds like it would preclude the DM being a player.

If you are serious, then I am sorry for "laughing" at your post, this isn't that serious an issue and I don't want to be a jerk. You seem to be doing essentially the thing I was saying is pointless, and I don't see how I can respond productively because it seems to be sidestepping all the interesting distinctions that could be made.

 

[Oofta]

Oofta the quoted text I was responding to stated "It is not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees". So you are correct it is not subject to majority rules.

The author of the quoted text, intended that any objection by a single participant in a game would scuttle the rule change.

If Gary Gygax, (kinda a big deal in these parts), was the author of the text...then a co-creator of the game, is advocating that players have veto power.
View attachment 130395

...

That's an interesting quote, but it's not supported by the current version of the game. Gygax had some interesting ideas and the game has moved on; the game and roles have evolved. It doesn't change that I've never in all my years of gaming had decisions made by a democratic vote unless it was a campaign with multiple DMs.

I solicit and listen to feedback, but someone has to make a final decision. End of the day though, the game doesn't exist without a DM. Whether I'm DMing or playing the DM is the final referee. I could quote things back to you, but DM's role is made quite clear in the DMG's introduction.

Want to have a vote on every house rule? I won't stop you. I don't have a lot of house rules myself, but I have made rulings in the past that people disagreed with. We discussed it briefly, I made sure I was clear and understood the situation, verified my ruling and we moved on.

 

[Umbran]

But do you consider the software a player in the game?

So, do you want us considering the GM a non-sentient being that fundamentally cannot feel enjoyment? Or disappointment, frustration, or physical pain? A thing that can be engaged at any time day or night, to do our bidding and entertain us? And when they frustrate us, we start cursing them out, throwing things at them?

Maybe that nonsensical analogy does not serve your purpose very well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oofta the quoted text I was responding to stated "It is not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees". So you are correct it is not subject to majoritarian votes.

The author of the quoted text, intended that any objection by a single participant in a game would scuttle the rule change.

If Gary Gygax, (kinda a big deal in these parts), was the author of the text...then a co-creator of the game, is advocating that players have veto power.

I mean, if we are quoting Gygax ...

"As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting 'sages' and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions."
DMG p. 8 (forward)

"Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already! Read and become familiar with the contents of this work and the one written for players, learn your monsters, and spice things up with some pantheons of super-powerful beings. Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu, and you have donned the mantle of Dungeon Master. Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harrassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often unappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: 'Never give a sucker an even break.' Also, don‘t be a sucker for your players, for you‘d better be sure they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure that you are."
DMG p. 9 (Introduction)


"In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice such things as melee hits or saving throws. However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
DMG p. 110 (conducting the game)


"Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die, obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings."
DMG p. 110 (handling troublesome players)

 

[Guest User]

I'm not advocating that House Rules be up to a vote...I'm responding to a quote somebody introduced into this thread.

I'm multi-tasking, but the TL;DR of your post seems to be:
You don't like the idea of players having votes or veto power, and the words of Gary Gygax only matter if you agree with them.

Cool.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

When playing a video game, the software runs the game. It controls the plot and all of the NPCs and creatures. It reacts to player actions.

But do you consider the software a player in the game?

But either way, and more to the point, D&D defines what a player is and what a DM is. There is no guessing here; it's been provided to us. I mean, what does NPC stand for? And who controls NPCs?

Why, if the distinction is so very clear, does the PHB introduce the role in this way?

One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee.

The only way to get off this carousel is to accept the premise (h/t to @DemoMonkey) that all the people at the table are (small "p") "players" yet, to distinguish the roles they play, there is only one DM and one or more (big "P") "Players".

3. The Division of Roles Matters in D&D. I will explain my principles to you, and if you don't like them? Well .... I have other principles.

...
OTOH, when I'm a DM or a player, I get concerned about players that are trying to "DM" from the player position. To use the three-step "how to play" loop, above, different players will have different facility with the rules, or with the ability to narrate, and I have seen players attempt to force certain results by usurping certain steps (such as narrating results, when other players are not doing so).

More interesting, to me, is this bit here about players "usurping certain steps". Are we talking about things like (in 5e at least) a player self-declaring an ability check and rolling the dice without the DM asking? What else would fall in this category?

And why is the narration of a result by a Player a faux pas? I've seen many DMs ask a Player now and then to narrate a killing blow, for instance - a technique that is specifically called out by Mike Shea in the "Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master" as a way to encourage group storytelling. Does it have something to do with Players narrating results on their own without the DM ask?