The role of the DM in the game and the group.

[Kahuna Burger]

A few threads have touched on this theme recently, and I thought I'd pull it out into its own thread and poll. Some folks have expressed the feeling that the DM basicly makes all the decisions and has all the power in how a game is run, and the players should either accept those decisions or not play the game. Others want the DM to run the game, but think players should have input into whether certain house rules, setting elements, etc should be used.

In the same vein, at least one poster has indicated an assumption that the DM is basicly the head of the group as well as the game. That is, the DM has final say on inviting or disinviting new group members, when and where the group plays, and other practical and social group functions. Others see the DM as another member of the group with no more out of game power than any other.

So how do you see the DM's role in the game or in the gaming group? And, have you played in a (edit) game group (edit) with more than one potential DM?

edit to correct last question.

 

[Hjorimir]

I'm not a fan of rule by committee and apparently neither are my friends. For us, the DM is the alpha and the omega at the end of the day. The DM will determine who is invited, what the setting is, what houserules are in effect, where we play (or at least where they are willing to run their game), etc.

The DM, as we see it, is the creator of the campaign and retains that power throughout. Now, that's not to say that those of us who DM do not elicit opinions from others before we make certain decisions. I have a very high level of respect for my players and I routinely will seek their advice and input in my design, but I will often times listen, then consider, then feel free to ignore if I want to go in a different direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a game with more than one potential DM" in your final question. Do you mean a single campaign? Or are we talking about a circle of friends with more than one potential DM? As far as campaigns go we have a single DM; amongst my friends we have different DMs who all run their own campaigns, which we refer to as Soandso's Game.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a game with more than one potential DM" in your final question. Do you mean a single campaign? Or are we talking about a circle of friends with more than one potential DM? As far as campaigns go we have a single DM; amongst my friends we have different DMs who all run their own campaigns, which we refer to as Soandso's Game.

AH, sorry, that should have been been "a group with more than one potential DM." Thank you for the catch.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm surprised by the "final say" votes.

To me, the DM is the primary bearer of game responsibility and the facilitator of everything else.

Because the DM has the biggest workload of the group, he should have a larger voice in decisions regarding the game itself: system, setting, style of play, houserules, etc. The DM should be a larger factor in these decisions but not the sole opinion. After all, everyone is at the table to have fun so everyone should get a say.

For out-of-game stuff, the DM is usually the organizer but not always. The owner of where the game is held probably has more of a say (and most likely absolute power) in things like scheduling, membership, smoking/eating/drinking policies, etc.

In my experience, the DM is usually the "organizer" even if the game isn't held at their place. They get the ball rolling even if the homeowner as the final say.

 

[Mallus]

KB, your poll doesn't differentiate between DM and host, which made it hard for me to answer. I voted 'Final say on scheduling', if only for the fact if the DM's not there, then we're doing something else on game night.

Control over the physical space I'm gaming in should belong to the owner of that space. When in Rome and all...

Control over scheduling should be determined by consensus, but a group can play down one or more players, they can't play down the DM.

Control over the in-game space should also be determined by consensus, with the caveat that the players recognize that the person DM'ing in doing the lion' share of the work, and make the appropriate accommodations (the game is about mutual accommodation).

DM'ing is a lot like hosting a party. You try to ensure that everyone has a good time, in the manner of their choosing (don't push drinks on teetotalers or dancing on white men) . But you hope your guests realize that it's a hell of lot easier to get dressed up and go to a party than it is to throw one.

 

[takyris]

Since I was at least one of the ones who sparked this:

Responsibilities and powers begin and end with the running of actual sessions.

I voted no. My responsibilities certainly don't end at the end of the session, since I'm planning the next session. And since I'm the one planning the next session, I'm the one making a lot of other decisions as well.

Primary (but not absolute) power to establish houserules and genre choices.
Absolute power over houserules, genre choices etc but only in advance.
Absolute power to establish and change any aspect of the game before or during play.

I voted no to the first two, and yes to the last one, but I don't think I mean what I think you mean. By that line, I suspect you think that I'm going to throw out the fantasy setting and start playing CoC or cyberpunk in the middle of a game, and I think that would be lousy DMing. However, if a DM realizes halfway through a session that a specific rule or feat is messing the adventure up in a big bad way, he has the responsibility to make the change on the fly.

The key here is to do it when it's appropriate -- when the game needs it, not when you the DM need it. Every rule change requires your players to remember one additional thing (and trust you a little more for going outside the core rules), and every rule change in mid-play draws on your credibility as a DM -- once or twice is probably fine, but if you're doing it every session, you're either a horrible planner or a DM who wants to force the players through your special story.

I also think that there's a difference between "absolute" and "unilateral". Yeah, if something is messing up the game and I need to make a rule-change on the fly, I have the final word -- but part of coming to a decision on that final word is bringing the matter up with the players to find out if it's bugging everyone. If it's bothering nobody save me, then it's likely not worth changing a rule to correct it.

Final say on scheduling.

I voted yes, since whenever I've DM'd, I was the one who made sure that we had a next session -- I had to organize the calendar-checking to make sure we figured out a new time.

The other reason I voted "yes" is that if one player out of eight has to cancel at the last minute, the game can continue. If the DM has to cancel at the last minute, the group can still get together to play something else, but the game as such can't happen.

But if "final say" means cackling evilly and declaring that the players will come when I say so, dangit, and if they have a problem, tough luck, then no. My "final say" meant finding out when everyone could make it and choosing the time that worked for everyone.

Final say on group membership.

I voted yes, but only in that the DM is the one who can say, "I think we've got enough players. Any more, and the game becomes too unwieldy." Any decision regarding adding a player should otherwise be a group decision. I'd give the DM veto power, but not automatic-yes power. (And as the DM, I've never used veto power, although there have been times when I wished I had in retrospect -- for example, the guy who wanted me to give his character a hot girlfriend.)

Final say on social aspects (table rules, eating, smoking, etc)

I voted yes, but again, I only see this in terms of veto power in particular cases. Every time I've had a talk about something like this with the group (both as a player and as the DM), it's come down to the DM, but the DM has always gone with the majority opinion. That might just be because I game with friends, so it's not like the rest of us want a lighthearted but engaged session in a clean atmosphere and one guy is smoking like a chimney and spilling pizza on our books.

(And I'd also give veto power to the person whose house it is. Either of those people have the power to say "We need to not do that." They don't have the power to decide what the group does do, but they have the power to say "Please stop doing ___.")

Generally equal say on scheduling, membership and social aspects with the rest of the Group.

I voted no, since I voted yes on everything else. I think that from a practicaly standpoint, the DM should end up having about an equal say, but the DM should always have the veto power, and in cases where things are deadlocked, the DM should make the final call based on what's best for the group as a whole.

 

[Mercule]

I said both "equal" and "final" for the social stuff. Ideally, everyone should have input and the group should be able to reach concensus. This being real life, concensus doesn't always happen. In such event, the GM gets a larger say in these matters, as does the host.

For game rule stuff, I absolutely loathe the notion of game by committee. The GM has to make the game flow. Therefore, he has to be comfortable with most, if not all, of the rules. It is better for a player to be slightly uncomfortable with a rule than for the GM to be slightly uncomfortable with it.

When a decision on a rule interpretation has to be made, or there is a situation just plain not handled, the GM has the obligation to make the call. He must be entrusted with the authority to do so. When it comes right down to it, if a game fails, the GM will almost always be the one who takes the reputation hit. For a group to not give the GM the authority needed to actually referee the game is grossly unfair to the GM.

 

[Belen]

I see the DM as the head of the group.

I recruit/ban players.
I make the schedule, but I am willing to work around a player's schedule if it fits mine.
I make the house rules, but I allow my players to weigh in on a rule and if enough of them to do not like it, then I will not use it.

Running a game is rough enough without adding conflicting personalities etc.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sums up my feelings on the matter: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3638657&postcount=255

It's hard to say that anyone doesn't have final say as to when they'll do anything, or what it is that they will be doing. The DM has final say for when he is willing to run a game, for what game he is willing to run, and for whom. Each player has final say as to whether or not they are interested. Compromise, when possible, is the adjusting of these factors until everyone's final say is compatable.....or until it becomes obvious that those people won't all be playing together.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The DM is no Dictator in some banana republic or something. He does have the right to refuse people's requests to play in the game, but I think so does everyone else. In our group, we wouldn't dream of letting someone play if even one of the current players didn't like him.

He generally is in charge of rules, but what's the point of forcing a rule no one likes? That will only antagonize players, and everyone should agree on rulings, the setting, the game, and so on.

He does have some extra say about the schedule because without him, there is no game. Still, in this regard, like with everything else, there should be consensus. It's okay if sometimes, some players can't play because they have something else to do on the regular gaming date and the majority doesn't want (or can't) change the schedule, but this should not be a regular thing.