D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[DND_Reborn]

While @Lanefan claiming the DM does all the work is an overstatement, the DM (or DMs taken in turn) still does the lion's share.

The DM, acting as storyteller, referee, etc. has to play all the monsters, set up the scenes, and so on.
Players play a character, maybe two or an NPC or sidekick, etc.

I am NOT saying players don't contribute, even to the narrative, by their actions.

And although a group might have different DMs, each acts in turn, and during that turn is doing more work than the players.

To help mitigate this workload, D&D suggests having one player act as bookkeeper, another as mapper, another can handle tracking initiative, you can even have one player "roll" for a monster when it attacks another player. There are lots of options to lessen the workload on the DM, because otherwise they are doing a lot more than the players.

Does the DM to all the work, probably not, but they typically do the bulk of it.

I have been improv GMing since my 1st edition Shadowrun campaign when it first came out in the early 90s. It's the only way I run.

Pretty much ever DM has to improv at some point or another... Choosing to make it the only way you run is great if it works for you, others like to spend their time prepping more.

Regardless, when you are GMing you are still doing more work than the players for the reasons I expressed above, unless you only ever run 1 opponent, let each player make as many decisions about what is happening as you do, make refereeing calls by vote, etc.???

 

[billd91]

I have been improv GMing since my 1st edition Shadowrun campaign when it first came out in the early 90s. It's the only way I run.

I ran an entire adventure revolving around one small but of premade idea (it would be funny if some NPCs mixed up a banshee-screaming fae with a banshee-tank vehicle and the players went on a wildly misguided shadowrun). That was literally the extent of my preplanning.

I am probably an anthesis GM to you because most of what I have to show for my 4 year long 5e campaign is maybe 7 pages of randomly scribbled notes I had to remember from one session to the next that had been made up on the spot.

Improvising doesn't mean you're not bearing the lion's share of the work - depending on how your group contributes. Prebuilding the campaign/adventure is work of one sort, bearing the mental load of improvising the adventure, the NPC, the settings is another sort of work.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

While @Lanefan claiming the DM does all the work is an overstatement, the DM (or DMs taken in turn) still does the lion's share.

The DM, acting as storyteller, referee, etc. has to play all the monsters, set up the scenes, and so on.
Players play a character, maybe two or an NPC or sidekick, etc.

I am NOT saying players don't contribute, even to the narrative, by their actions.

And although a group might have different DMs, each acts in turn, and during that turn is doing more work than the players.

To help mitigate this workload, D&D suggests having one player act as bookkeeper, another as mapper, another can handle tracking initiative, you can even have one player "roll" for a monster when it attacks another player. There are lots of options to lessen the workload on the DM, because otherwise they are doing a lot more than the players.

Does the DM to all the work, probably not, but they typically do the bulk of it.


Pretty much ever DM has to improv at some point or another... Choosing to make it the only way you run is great if it works for you, others like to spend their time prepping more.

Regardless, when you are GMing you are still doing more work than the players for the reasons I expressed above, unless you only ever run 1 opponent, let each player make as many decisions about what is happening as you do, make refereeing calls by vote, etc.???

Heres a peek behind my GM screen.....

I ran an epic battle with the PCs leading a 1000 strong unit of cavalry versus an opposing army. Spells flying, arrow volleys, reserves, etc.

The extent of my notes...a blank sheet of paper. The scene was run entirely by me rolling some fortune dice (d20 higher is better) and applying the result to whatever.

The players used good tactics to win the day and loved it, but they were slave to math and mechanics. On my end I just storeytell, which for me is as easy as watching TV.

Work is something that makes me tired ... GMing does not do that. That's my take on it anyway

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Improvising doesn't mean you're not bearing the lion's share of the work - depending on how your group contributes. Prebuilding the campaign/adventure is work of one sort, bearing the mental load of improvising the adventure, the NPC, the settings is another sort of work.

My pregame world building is literally sitting around the table with the players and asking them questions.

Do you want to use the FR dirties or do you guys want to make up your own pantheon?

What's the name of the "world"? What's the name of this or that kingdom?

How did these dwarves become cursed?

I outsource all that stuff to the players.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Heres a peek behind my GM screen.....

I ran an epic battle with the PCs leading a 1000 strong unit of cavalry versus an opposing army. Spells flying, arrow volleys, reserves, etc.

So? Is the amount of things supposed to be impressive? Especially considering your mechanics for running the game...

The extent of my notes...a blank sheet of paper. The scene was run entirely by me rolling some fortune dice (d20 higher is better) and applying the result to whatever.

So, your style of DMing is rolling a d20 and just making the ruling "the higher the roll, the more favorable the result for the PCs"?

Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but do your players know that is all you do???

The players used good tactics to win the day and loved it, but they were slave to math and mechanics.

Why? Why can't they just roll a fortune die as well? They don't need to track all that stuff and use all those mechanics unless they actually want to play the game using the rules...

On my end I just storeytell, which for me is as easy as watching TV.

No wonder, you basically aren't using any of the rules in D&D, or rules for Shadowrun if you do the same thing. IMO a lot of people might not think of that as actually playing those games.

Work is something that makes me tired ... GMing does not do that. That's my take on it anyway

Given what you've said I am hardly surprised.

 

[Thomas Shey]

to main a race like those people who must always play an elf or is this a one-off desperate to play a thing?

I'll try to answer the question I think you're asking, but I'm not sure still that I'm right.

This is usually someone trying to play something well beyond anything even semi-standard, and normally its not a one-off case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really? There's so many good games out there. I couldn't just stick to one. And yes, I have far too many, I guess, but they make me happy.

I honestly don't think what he wants there is possible by my standards; and I certainly wouldn't want to use something originally purpose built for that if I was going to try. It'd either show its roots all the time, or I'd be reworking it enough I'd be pretty much doing a new system anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm curious if there's any correlation to people who feel that class is an in-universe construct instead of a game construct.

Hard to say in my case, as I tend to think its some of one, some of the other.

 

[Minigiant]

I think part of the conversation is being danced around.

At many tables, the DMs do the lion's share of the work and the world design. Therefore the DM's preferences in world design is veryimportant.

The obvious follow up is: how important does the the player's preferences factor into world or setting design or choice?

There is a huge gap in this opinion. In this thread and many others over the internet you see views ranging from

"Player preferences don't matter. The DM gets to decide everything and if the players don't like anything, they can vote with their feet".

to

"Player preferences do matter somewhat. The DM can entertain player preference but there is no pressure nor onus to listen or follow through. The players can walk if they don't like it."

to

"Player preferences matter. The DM should attempt to add player preferences in their game if they can and offer compromise suggestion if things aren't 100% compatible. The DM should at least attempt to keep the players at the table."

to

"Player preferences are important and DMs must at least attempt to include them outside of the desires that the ones the DM really dislikes or has no fun with."

to

"Player opinions are extremely important. At longs as the preferences are not offensive to the DM or difficult for the DM to run. the DM must include Player preferences on world design or setting choice. The players should never leave dueto race or class restrictions"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do y'all (on both sides) view choice of character class the same as race? Sub-classes? Alignment? Deities?

Alignment is nonsense, so I always jettison it. Deities are of course completely setting dependent, and I create a list of bespoke deities for every setting I make. Now unlike races, classes have a lot of mechanical weight, and creating new classes is a massive amount of work (creating new races is pretty simple.) Every setting doesn't need to have every class, let alone subclass (and my current one doesn't) but ultimately if most of the classes are unsuitable for the setting, then D&D most likely is not a suitable system to be used with that setting.