The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Reynard]

I wanted to spin this out of the "power creep" thread because I think it is worth its own discussion.

I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.

Now, this might not be true with paid GMing -- which is why after having done it a little, I am not a fan. Even at a convention, I am still a facilitator of fun, rather than a vendor of it, if that makes sense.

Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?

 

[billd91]

Do I think the GM is responsible for my fun when we play? Yes, but it's a shared responsibility. It's also mine and every player at the table's responsibility. So I'm on board with the idea that the game is more of a dinner party with the GM hosting and not a restaurant where I'm presented with an experience that I receive. And that's true whether I'm playing with friends, random weirdos, or a professional GM.

 

[payn]

So, are you saying gaming is more like Sauceman's?

 

[Reynard]

So, are you saying gaming is more like Sauceman's?

Man, when I say to myself, "Reynard, you really shouldn't click that link," I desperately need to start listening.

 

[aco175]

I'll say it.

I do think be default the DM has the most responsibility for making the game work and be fun for all. It is he who is looked at to make decisions and given the power over the world. He who generally gets the people together and does the most work. It is right, likly not, but that is the way it is.

 

[Fenris-77]

I have no time for players who feel entitled to passive entertainment. Active and engaged players, on the other hand, provide an appropriate amount of grist for that mill. Entertainment at the table is a team sport IMO.

 

[MGibster]

I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.

If you want to use the dinner party analogy, then think of the DM as the host who has all the responsibilities associated with that position. And all the players are guests with the responsibility of being good guests.

 

[Morrus]

The GM is a player. Just happens to have a different role in the game to the other players. When a group of people get together to enjoy a a social activity together, they’re all responsible for it.

(I’m not sure how I’d translate that to the idea of pro GMs though; they’re service provider, I guess?)

 

[Yora]

The best term I could come up with for the function of the GM in a game is as the facilitator of play.

The GM provides the players with toys to play with. But the players still have to play with the toys themselves. RPGs are not a puppet show.

(That being said, the vast majority of published adventures are "come gather around, old GM is reading you a story.")

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

If you want to use the dinner party analogy, then think of the DM as the host who has all the responsibilities associated with that position. And all the players are guests with the responsibility of being good guests.

This.