# Is the DM the most important person at the table



## aco175 (Feb 15, 2020)

Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.

I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.  

Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 15, 2020)

It's a social game above all else. So yes, everyone is there to have fun, and everyone is there to have ideas heard.  Also, the DM is the most important because there's only one there, and they put in the most work and effort to make the game happen. 

Good DMs try to make an effort to incorporate all players and facilitate their fun. 

Good players respect the efforts of the DM and work within the DM's world and don't try to overturn the apple cart by forcing their own ideas into the game world.


----------



## ccs (Feb 15, 2020)

Most equel amongst equels.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2020)

Important, in what sense?

I mean, is the GM a highly placed government official?  An influential celebrity?  A time traveler from the future, here to save humanity, apparently by way of a tabletop role playing game?  No?  Okay then - so the folks at your table are.. just folks.  In the grand scheme of things, even if they are a government official or a celebrity*, they're just the same meat and bones as you.  There's seven billion other people on the planet - none of us are particularly important.

I mean, maybe it is Joe's birthday.  Or maybe Sarah's had a hard week, so you could take it easy on her with the friendly insults, okay?  But otherwise, nobody's really any more important.

And, if your GM is sitting down to run a game, and anywhere near the front of their mind is, "Ah!  I am the most important person in the room!" they are probably going to do a crummy job running the game, and see how important they feel when the players go... "Dude, it isn't all about you.  This isn't fun.  We're going to go bowling."

Don't worry about who is "important".  Worry about who these people are, and what their wants and needs are.   And, knowing a bit of that, see if you can make the world a little nicer, just around the table, for a little while.



* I cannot vouch for the time traveler.  They probably have some weird transhumanist carbon nanotube bones, or somesuch.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 15, 2020)

James is still James no matter where he sits at the table. If I switch places it does not matter.

In the end I think approaching this thing we do in terms of rights and power dynamics leads to getting things twisted. I think it is a lot more fruitful to think about expectations, our responsibility to one another, and boundaries all of which are highly dependent on individual group dynamics.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2020)

Yes.

But mostly in the sense that if a player leaves, the game can go on, but of the GM leaves, you might as well break out a board game or watch a movie.

I think anyone that has run or tried to run a campaign for people has, or ought to have, a great deal of respect for anyone that puts in that work. The more I do it, the more respect I have for anyone that runs a game. It's a ton of work. It's not easy to be a good GM. It's not easy to keep a bunch of players engaged and interested.

I totally agree with you though that players have to do their part.  We talk a lot about skillful GMing and how to as a GM ensure everyone has fun, but being a skillful player and ensuring everyone (including the GM) has fun is also a thing.  Exactly what skillful play constitutes is going to very from table to table.  Is it becoming part of a well oiled machine, and executing plays with cunning and elan, so that collectively the party vanquishes its enemies and there are high fives all around?  Yes, that's a sort of skillful play.  Is it being able to read another players cues and provide a framework for them to monologue in (think Horatio to their Hamlet), or witty in character banter, or cooperating in some melodrama where you characters have a grievance even though neither player actually does?  Yes, that's a sort of skillful play as well.   Which one is the right type depends on the group and the game and sometimes the moment within the game.


----------



## aco175 (Feb 15, 2020)

I'm happy to see that everyone agrees so far.  

I DM because I like to and I enjoy putting in the extra time and effort.  I guess someone could argue that the DM cannot choose to not show up and the game can still go on, so more important to making the game go on, but certainly not more important overall in a cosmic thing- unless he is a time traveler.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Feb 15, 2020)

You did say "DM," rather than 'GM,' so yes, of course.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

So we have a group of 5 and the DM leaves.... now we have a group of 4 with a new DM.

Is a good DM more important than a good player?  I'm not as sure anymore.


----------



## Wulffolk (Feb 15, 2020)

Not quite so.

Every DM can be a capable Player, but not every Player can be a capable DM.

Thus, the DM is more important than any one Player.

However, both the DM and the Players should be contributing to the fun of the group.

Too often certain Players have a sense of entitlement, believing that the DM is there to cater to them, while the other players are just along for the ride.

Conversely, there are some DM's that use their position to feel some sense of control and power over the players.

I suggest walking away from either of those toxic types if having a diplomatic and mature discussion does not help them improve.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So we have a group of 5 and the DM leaves.... now we have a group of 4 with a new DM.



Or you have a group of 4 with nowhere to play (IME the game is invariably at the DM's home) who then just drift apart.



> Is a good DM more important than a good player?  I'm not as sure anymore.



A DM of any kind is more important than a player in one respect, in that without a DM the player has no place to play.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 15, 2020)

Every person at the table, whether they're a GM or a player, has the potential to be as valuable as anyone else by contributing to the shared experience of the game in a positive way. Good players attend regularly, participate to include everyone else, and follow the queues set by others to build a shared narrative and a fun atmosphere. Mostly, they ensure that everyone else has a good time playing together as a group. 

That being said, the _role_ of the GM is the most important of any RPG. The person who accepts the role responsibly and competently should be both respected and appreciated. But just like players, there are good and bad GMs who have the potential to make or break a game. 

A good GM, for example, sets the tone for the group and cultivates a fun, entertaining environment for all players to enjoy. This is especially important when introducing new players because a negative experience can create a wrong impression that will stick. That kind of damage is hard to undo. By contrast, a bad player can be overlooked, and when necessary, removed from the group if unwilling or unable to be corrected.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

More important No. Necessary Yes. 
I guess you could play the game without a GM but generally because they're the one making the decisions on everything the other players are interacting with I generally just say the GM is a player who's character is the campaign.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

First among equals.

Everyone's enjoyment is important. However, the DM/GM assumes a position of responsibility at the table. They are the referee. They ostensibly prep material for each game (or are on the hook for improvising it). They aren't more important than anyone else, but their role bestows different/more rights and responsibilities (within the context of the game table) than the role of player.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Feb 15, 2020)

aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.
> 
> I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.
> 
> Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.




I always liked the term "referee" better -- it implies neutrality and doesn't have importance overly tied to it, as "Dungeon Master" and "Game Master" do. Yes, they run the scenario, but the best referees let the chips fall where they may without trying to influence proceedings.  That said, I've seen scenarios run where the party WANTS the referee to influence things, to point them in the right direction, give hints, etc.  But that's more a party dynamic and preference.  Some players want to be lead, some groups want more agency.  It should all be an agreement about "how we'll play" at the beginning.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Or you have a group of 4 with nowhere to play (IME the game is invariably at the DM's home) who then just drift apart.




It could be the reverse just as easily - they are at the player's house and when he leaves they have no place to play and drift apart.



> A DM of any kind is more important than a player in one respect, in that without a DM the player has no place to play.




I'm not seeing why.


----------



## generic (Feb 15, 2020)

If the DM leaves, then, someone else will become the DM... People are people.  I suppose, if the DM leaves, it will destroy the campaign, while, when a player leaves, the same does not happen, but, in a traditional sense, the DM is no more important than any of the players.  I play D&D to have fun with my mates, not to become the lord of the table.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.




That's not always the case.  For example last weekend we had a player miss and decided it best to wait on him to return to continue our primary campaign.  So the players created characters which took them about an hour and I helped and put about 15 mins of thought into their adventure.  They certainly put more work in this week than I did.



> He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.




Sure, but a good player pushes the game forward and really makes the game come to life - sometimes even making a bad DM appear good.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> If the DM leaves, then, someone else will become the DM... People are people.  I suppose, if the DM leaves, it will destroy the campaign, while, when a player leaves, the same does not happen, but, in a traditional sense, the DM is no more important than any of the players.  I play D&D to have fun with my mates, not to become the lord of the table.




I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good.  I'm not sure that's the case.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good.  I'm not sure that's the case.




In my experience it’s very much the case. And if the DM leaves, no more game. If you’re lucky, you might have a player who can step up, but it’s far from a given.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

macd21 said:


> In my experience it’s very much the case.




There is a difference between hard and requiring more time. 



> And if the DM leaves, no more game. If you’re lucky, you might have a player who can step up, but it’s far from a given.




If the DM leaves then one of the players becomes the DM.  I'm not sure why you think that requires luck or will not be the typical case.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good.  I'm not sure that's the case.



I think they do support each other more than most would admit. 
generally GMs have to be equally active and reactive in their decision making. By nature of having more control over the game will make more mistakes which some people don't like. Most gaming communities i have seen have a huge discrepancy of player/GM ratio which means most people don't enjoy GMing or avoid it for other reasons.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I think what we are seeing here is the general perception that it's harder to DM good than play good.  I'm not sure that's the case.



You might be right about them doing it _well_.

However, there's a very real difference between a player playing well and a DM running well, as they are different skill sets.

Because the GM sets the tone of the game, it's much harder to have a fun game with an unskilled GM than with unskilled players, at least IME. 

Skilled players with an unskilled GM might be patient and understanding with the GM, but it's almost guaranteed that they would have more fun playing under a skilled GM.

Unskilled players can most definitely still have a great time playing under a skilled GM.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> I think they do support each other more than most would admit.
> generally GMs have to be equally active and reactive in their decision making. By nature of having more control over the game will make more mistakes which some people don't like. Most gaming communities i have seen have a huge discrepancy of player/GM ratio which means most people don't enjoy GMing or avoid it for other reasons.




I would surmise that the community is generally toxic to new DM's.  I mean have you seen the threads here when a presumably newer DM asks a question and it comes out that he had made a mistake.  Have you seen how players in general react to a new DM's game?  Whereas it's easy to be a newer player as there is support from the whole group and from the DM himself


----------



## Rikka66 (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> If the DM leaves then one of the players becomes the DM. I'm not sure why you think that requires luck or will not be the typical case.




In my experience, mostly doesn't happen. And considering it's accepted that there's a shortage of DMs compared to players...

No one's arguing that the DM being more important makes them better. But they do have more jobs at the table, and do more of the prep. And the nature of the role makes them more likely to be the group organizer and caretaker. Everyone is important at the table, and everyone contributes to the group, and it's important that everyone enjoys themselves.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> You might be right about them doing it _well_.
> 
> However, there's a very real difference between a player playing well and a DM running well, as they are different skill sets.
> 
> ...




I don't think you take that idea far enough.  A single good player providing a bad/new GM buy-in to his story and following the GM's lead is a godsend.  It's usually enough to make the bad GM seem like a good GM.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Rikka66 said:


> In my experience, mostly doesn't happen. And considering it's accepted that there's a shortage of DMs compared to players...




There's nothing stopping any player from DM'ing - except for his fear of the community and fear of failure in general.  



> No one's arguing that the DM being more important makes them better.




And no one is arguing that anyone is arguing that.  



> But they do have more jobs at the table,




Probably but I'm not certain what you refer to as jobs?



> and do more of the prep.




Sure, though skills can be learned that greatly reduces the amount of prep.



> And the nature of the role makes them more likely to be the group organizer and caretaker.




So you mean - the DM typically assumes an additional role that has nothing to do with DM'ing.  I believe that but I'm not sure it impacts this discussion at all.



> Everyone is important at the table, and everyone contributes to the group, and it's important that everyone enjoys themselves.




Do you believe that a good player can make an otherwise bad DM seem to be a good DM?


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I would surmise that the community is generally toxic to new DM's.  I mean have you seen the threads here when a presumably newer DM asks a question and it comes out that he had made a mistake.  Have you seen how players in general react to a new DM's game?  Whereas it's easy to be a newer player as there is support from the whole group and from the DM himself



Agreed. Is especially true in this edition which is way more new player-friendly then new GM friendly. Even the DMG is set up for a player's perspective
It takes a long time for an individual GM to find a style that works for them. In my gaming community there's four or five people that are recently looking into starting GMing and they were surprised when I told them the first thing they should do is disregard anything that I tell them that doesn't work for them lol.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't think you take that idea far enough.  A single good player providing a bad/new GM buy-in to his story and following the GM's lead is a godsend.  It's usually enough to make the bad GM seem like a good GM.



I disagree. A good player going along with a bad GM might make it palatable where it otherwise wouldn't be, but it won't make it good. 

Whereas the game is likely be good with a good GM, irrespective of player skill. 

Everyone's fun is important, but the skill of the GM is more relevant to the quality of the experience than the skill of the player(s), IME. Part of that is in fact because a good GM recognizes that everyone's fun is important, whereas an unskilled/bad GM might not.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Agreed. Is especially true in this edition which is way more new player-friendly then new GM friendly. Even the DMG is set up for a player's perspective
> It takes a long time for an individual GM to find a style that works for them. In my gaming community there's four or five people that are recently looking into starting GMing and they were surprised when I told them the first thing they should do is disregard anything that I tell them that doesn't work for them lol.




Yep.  Also, whatever the cause, new players are much more tolerated than new DM's.  It's probably a factor of relatability.  Players can relate to being a new player themselves.  They may have never seen a new GM and have no idea what it's like being one.


----------



## Rikka66 (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> There's nothing stopping any player from DM'ing - except for his fear of the community and fear of failure in general.




Doesn't change that there are less of them. And most players and DMs doesn't engage with communities like this, so I don't think there to worried about being berated by online jerks.



FrogReaver said:


> Probably but I'm not certain what you refer to as jobs?




All of the things the DM does. Change it to tasks, or roles, or whatever.



FrogReaver said:


> Sure, though skills can be learned that greatly reduces the amount of prep.




Of course, though they still have more of it to do.



FrogReaver said:


> So you mean - the DM typically assumes an additional role that has nothing to do with DM'ing. I believe that but I'm not sure it impacts this discussion at all.




"On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game." From the opening post.



FrogReaver said:


> Do you believe that a good player can make an otherwise bad DM seem to be a good DM?




It's a team exercise, and one in which everyone can help support each other's deficiencies. A good player can help a bad DM be better. A good DM can help a bad player be better.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 15, 2020)

I think the topic might be misleading. The person who is the GM is not more or less important than anyone else playing a game. It is the role of the GM that carries the weight of responsibility, and thus a greater measure of importance. Respect the role and the person who assumes it responsibly.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree. A good player going along with a bad GM might make it palatable where it otherwise wouldn't be, but it won't make it good.




Why?



> Whereas the game is likely be good with a good GM, irrespective of player skill.




I find that a bad player can derail the game for everyone including the GM.  That said the GM does have some granted group authority to mitigate the bad player from particularly bad play.



> Everyone's fun is important, but the skill of the GM is more relevant to the quality of the experience than the skill of the player(s),




Maybe, but there must be a reason if this is the case.  What about the skill of a GM is more relevant to the group experience than the skill of the players?



> IME. Part of that is in fact because a good GM recognizes that everyone's fun is important, whereas an unskilled/bad GM might not.




As nice as that sounds - and it's definitely better when done - i don't think recognizing everyone's fun is important is something that significantly impacts the fun of everyone.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Rikka66 said:


> Doesn't change that there are less of them. And most players and DMs doesn't engage with communities like this, so I don't think there to worried about being berated by online jerks.




So what do you propose is the reason more player's don't DM?  I mean it's trivially easy to starting being a DM after you've been a player.  So there really shouldn't be this lack of DM's.  So why do you think there is?



> All of the things the DM does. Change it to tasks, or roles, or whatever.




Okay, so what jobs/tasks/roles are you having in mind that the DM has more of?  I don't know for certain but I'm afraid all you are doing is throwing out different descriptions of the DM's one job - to DM and calling them different jobs.  If that's the case we can do the same things for the players jobs/tasks/roles.  So while I'm still willing to admit you are probably right - I need more detail on exactly what jobs/tasks/roles you are implying.



> Of course, though they still have more of it to do.




And doing more does not make for the role or person to be more important...  



> "On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game." From the opening post.




Right... the question is what does putting in more work have to do with anything?



> It's a team exercise, and one in which everyone can help support each other's deficiencies. A good player can help a bad DM be better. A good DM can help a bad player be better.




Almost sounds like we agree...


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Jacob Lewis said:


> I think the topic might be misleading. The person who is the GM is not more or less important than anyone else playing a game.




I think even that's debatable with the good dm/bad player vs bad dm/good player discussion.


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 15, 2020)

Only if the DM “needs” to be the most important. And you don’t want to play with that guy anyways.


----------



## aco175 (Feb 15, 2020)

My OP had me thinking about some of the past threads we had here about things such as railroading and players and DMs both taking part in the game.  Some of the homebrew DMs talked about limiting races and classes.  Some have pages of new rules and restrictions for their home games.  There was talk about "my game, my rules" and such and I was getting the impression of some DMs thinking that if it is my game, then what I make is what we play regardless of what the players want to play.  I also got the idea that some were thinking that if players do not want to play in their world they can go away.  

Is there different attitudes among DMs that make their own world vs. others that just uses FR or Greyhawk for example, or just runs the adventure books that come out?  

Each table and group has different local rules they play with and changes to make things run better for them.  We discuss may rule changes here and everyone agrees with a few and not with others.  Is there a place where the rules are changed so much that it influences the game as a whole?  Does this influence the way some may look at other tables?  I'm not sure this last part comes into play, but I may take some ideas to make my game better (at least according to me and my local group).


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm not seeing why.




Likely because your experience is a group of GMs, and thus no one player is irreplaceable because someone can take over the job. But in many groups, there is often only one player willing and able to perform the duty. If that person leaves, then the group often disbands because either no one is willing to attempt to run a campaign, or if someone does, it is far enough below the standards set by the GM that the participants would rather not play than continue. 

As one example, I was with a group of about 10 players (some of whom only attended irregularly) which had at one point 5 GMs.  But about the time that I joined the group, the groups tastes in the game began to mature from the combined result of years of gaming and increasing age and maturity.   Gradually over the course of about a year, the other campaigns were dropped in favor of the game of one of the GMs simply because no one was enjoying any other game - including the GMs of those games.  Some of the GMs did continue as a GM in alternative game systems, and ran some well regarded mini-campaigns, but it was clear by that point that while several of the players were very good players, they just didn't have the skills to also be very good GMs - or at least good GMs by the higher standards that they themselves were setting.    They all could have run megadungeon crawls where you listen at doors, disarm traps, kill monsters and take their stuff.  But they'd all gotten to the point that after 10-years of that, they needed more.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 15, 2020)

I disagree that if the DM leaves, another player just takes their place. I think that's an exception. It's why DMs are in high demand. And why you see players leave at AL games when there aren't enough DMs to go around. I very much doubt those players all get together and say "I'll DM!". From what I've seen, they just leave. 

Also, a DM is more skilled than a player because the DM has to do everything a player does (roleplay a persona) and a whole lot more on top of it that players don't. Like playing EVERY NPC persona. And knowing most of the rules of most classes, not just their own. And organizing the game. And preparing a lot more. 

I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through). But I have seen good players who make poor DMs (largely because of disorganization, poor planning, lack of rules knowledge, etc)


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Celebrim said:


> But in many groups, there is often only one player willing and able to perform the duty.




Nearly every player is able to DM.  Not all are willing, but the question is why aren't they willing?  



> If that person leaves, then the group often disbands because either no one is willing to attempt to run a campaign, or if someone does, it is far enough below the standards set by the GM that the participants would rather not play than continue.




So we either have people unwilling to run a game - not that they can't just that for some unknown and undescribed reasons they don't want to.  Yea, I've elaborated on what I think those reasons are.  I don't see anyone else offering ideas on that...

Or we have a persons GM abilities being judged harshly because they are new and the previous DM was more experienced.  Thus, the reason we don't have more DM's is because no one gives them a chance to hone their DM skills.



> As one example, I was with a group of about 10 players (some of whom only attended irregularly) which had at one point 5 GMs.  But about the time that I joined the group, the groups tastes in the game began to mature from the combined result of years of gaming and increasing age and maturity.   Gradually over the course of about a year, the other campaigns were dropped in favor of the game of one of the GMs simply because no one was enjoying any other game - including the GMs of those games.  Some of the GMs did continue as a GM in alternative game systems, and ran some well regarded mini-campaigns, but it was clear by that point that while several of the players were very good players, they just didn't have the skills to also be very good GMs - or at least good GMs by the higher standards that they themselves were setting.    They all could have run megadungeon crawls where you listen at doors, disarm traps, kill monsters and take their stuff.  But they'd all gotten to the point that after 10-years of that, they needed more.




So the point of the story is that there are plenty of GM's but that not everyone wants to play in certain GM's games.  Taken to a community level that would seem to imply that there are plenty of GM's in the community?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

I think that the “importance” of the DM is mostly due to supply and demand, as many have mentioned in the thread.

But, I think in a way it’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. Because it’s exactly this idea....that being a DM is somehow tougher or more meaningful than being a player....that makes people less willing to DM.

The way to create more DMs is to remind people that it’s really not much tougher than playing and that they actually can do it. Also having more voices that are focused on the group activity rather than those of “my table, my way” proponents will also help.

So I think that rather than ask “is the DM more important?” the better question is “do we want the DM to be more important?” And once you’ve answered that, then you should proceed accordingly.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that the “importance” of the DM is mostly due to supply and demand, as many have mentioned in the thread.
> 
> But, I think in a way it’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. Because it’s exactly this idea....that being a DM is somehow tougher or more meaningful than being a player....that makes people less willing to DM.
> 
> ...





Why lie to people like that?  I've DMed for 40 years.  I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe.  Playing is tremendously easier.  Can more people do it?  Sure!  Do they want to? Heck, no!  Why not? _Because it is hard._
There is the typical learning curve  for doing a new activity.  There is more administration.  There is more social wrangling of the players.

It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.

When I DM, am I more important than any single player to my game?  Yes.  I run if at least half my players are available.  I never run if I'm not available.  There's a ratio there.  If I have at least 2 players, I'm more important to the game.

Am I more important to the social gathering?  Probably not.  Those times where I don't want to/can't run, other activities get pulled out.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Why lie to people like that?  I've DMed for 40 years.  I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe.  Playing is tremendously easier.  Can more people do it?  Sure!  Do they want to? Heck, no!  Why not? _Because it is hard._
> There is the typical learning curve  for doing a new activity.  There is more administration.  There is more social wrangling of the players.
> 
> It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.



Yep. DMing is harder. For reasons mentioned upthread. It's more responsibility and greater needed game knowledge and greater organization. 

And for some people, that's just too much. Nothing wrong with that, but no sense in setting people up for failure by telling them is no more difficult, and then they find out the hard way it is. THAT is what turns away new DMs. 

IMO the proper response is "DMing is harder. But it's also rewarding in different ways. Here, let me help. We'll co-DM for a while and I'll coach you."


----------



## dragoner (Feb 15, 2020)

Depends on what table: online? The game dies, face to face, someone else GM's.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Why?



That's been my experience.

The GM sets the tone and is the referee. If the person bringing life to the world you interact with is bad, it is likely to impact the entire experience (negatively). I suppose it's likely to be fine if all the players want to do is sit at a tavern table and RP, but as soon as they need to interact with the game world in a meaningful sense beyond of the player characters themselves, that relies on the DM.


> I find that a bad player can derail the game for everyone including the GM.  That said the GM does have some granted group authority to mitigate the bad player from particularly bad play.



I said irrespective of player skill. Being a bad player (ie, being disruptive, etc) is more reflective of a lack of basic life skills than player skill.

And as you say, a good GM can significantly mitigate the impact of a bad player. A good player is quite limited in their capacity to mitigate a bad GM.


> Maybe, but there must be a reason if this is the case.  What about the skill of a GM is more relevant to the group experience than the skill of the players?



As I stated above, the GM is responsible for everything outside the PCs themselves. They set the tone, determine how the world interacts with the PCs, and arbitrate the rules.


> As nice as that sounds - and it's definitely better when done - i don't think recognizing everyone's fun is important is something that significantly impacts the fun of everyone.



Maybe not at a conscious level. But IMO there aren't any good GMs who don't recognize this at least subconsciously.

Why would anyone play if they didn't enjoy it?

Note that not every group's definition of fun is the same. One group might enjoy cinematic adventures where they get to be Big Damn Heroes. Another group might enjoy a brutal, bloody slog that would best be described as nightmare-difficulty. Some GMs might be good at running one style but not the other, resulting in a good GM who is bad for a group that doesn't want to play that way. But that's more a matter of mismatched expectations than actual skill.




Sacrosanct said:


> I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through). But I have seen good players who make poor DMs (largely because of disorganization, poor planning, lack of rules knowledge, etc)



I have, though it's a rarity. He was a good GM because he would run the kind of game that he wanted to play in, where the players had a lot of agency.

Unfortunately, when he played he was a very selfish kind of player who required a lot of social pressure from everyone at the table to not constantly do things that were at the expense of everyone else's fun. He's a friend, so it wasn't like we were going to boot him from the table, but it could be quite stressful and unfun.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Or you have a group of 4 with nowhere to play (IME the game is invariably at the DM's home) who then just drift apart.
> 
> A DM of any kind is more important than a player in one respect, in that without a DM the player has no place to play.



That’s never been my experience. Mostly we play at the house of whoever has the best house for getting together and playing at.

we don’t come to my little apartment when I’m gonna run a game, we go to my buddy’s place. That doesn’t make him more important than other players, it just makes him the host, they guy you ask before taking things outta the fridge, and help pick up at the end of the night.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Why lie to people like that?  I've DMed for 40 years.  I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe.  Playing is tremendously easier.




Perhaps that depends on the style of games the DM is running.  There are styles that require minimal prep and make for extremely fun games.



> Can more people do it?  Sure!  Do they want to? Heck, no!  Why not? _Because it is hard._




But what's hard about it?  It seems to me that what makes it "hard" is how players react if you are not an extremely experienced DM.  It seems to me that it's hard because the community offers little to no support for unique DM styles.  It seems to me that it's hard because the slightest DM error gets harped on like it's the end of the world.

I think it's far more likely that things other than hardness are impacting this.  

Then there's also the other side of the equation and that's - is DM'ing more rewarding than playing?  



> There is the typical learning curve  for doing a new activity.




Something we are more than willing to grant to new players



> There is more administration.




Depends on the style.  It can be only slightly more.  Or it can be extremely so.



> There is more social wrangling of the players.




How so?



> It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.




But ultimately the question is why.  Is it because it's hard and you are somehow superior because you will do the "hard" things?  Or is it because the community is mostly nasty to new DM's?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Why lie to people like that?  I've DMed for 40 years.  I played intermittently throughout the same timeframe.  Playing is tremendously easier.  Can more people do it?  Sure!  Do they want to? Heck, no!  Why not? _Because it is hard._
> There is the typical learning curve  for doing a new activity.  There is more administration.  There is more social wrangling of the players.
> 
> It would be nice if more players stepped behind the screen, but I don't expect the ratios to change all that much.
> ...




Because I don’t think it’s a lie. I don’t think that it is significantly harder to DM than to play. I think that we’ve been conditioned to think this, and I think a lot of the common DMing techniques and practices can support that. 

But I think that does not need to be the case.

There are plenty of ways to make the job easier, and plenty of ways for the group to work together. I’m personally not the rules guru at my table. I lean on one player to be my spell guru, and another for combat rules. I have another player track initiative. We divvy up the maintenance jobs of the game so that the DM can focus on the NPCs and the world as they reapond to the PCs. 

Is there a learning curve to DMing? Sure. There’s one for playing well, too. Both tend to be accomplished best through practice and through trying different things until any individual finds what works best for them. In that sense, they’re really not all that different.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Perhaps that depends on the style of games the DM is running.  There are styles that require minimal prep and make for extremely fun games.



Even with low-prep games (unlike D&D) and DMing styles designed to be low-prep ()Lazy DM tips), running a game requires more administration, more attention, heck even more _speaking_.  It requires the assumption of more viewpoints more quickly and the ability to jump between stances nearly instantly.

In other words, it requires one to develop new skills and hone some player skills more sharply.  _That's work_.



> But what's hard about it?  It seems to me that what makes it "hard" is how players react if you are not an extremely experienced DM.  It seems to me that it's hard because the community offers little to no support for unique DM styles.  It seems to me that it's hard because the slightest DM error gets harped on like it's the end of the world.[




I've pointed out what's hard.  "The community" doesn't exist.  There are lots of mico communities I like to call tables.  The social norms and expectations differ dramatically across them.  Many (most?) of the tables I'm at seek to help players try and become DM/GMs _because the few DMs that are there would like more chances to play_.  We coach, we spread load, we are willing to suggest or critique if the DM asks for criticism.  You kow what?  About 1 in 3 people try to DM at least once.  About 1 in 6 people run a campaign.  About one in a dozen go on to run additional campaigns.  The rest don't want to.  _Because it is hard_.



> Then there's also the other side of the equation and that's - is DM'ing more rewarding than playing?




For some people!  About 1 in 12! The ones that go on to run multiple campaigns like to DM at least as much as playing.



> Something we are more than willing to grant to new players



OK.  And?



> Depends on the style.  It can be only slightly more.  Or it can be extremely so.



  But it is never less.



> How so?



All sorts of ways.  Keeping the players on point, making sure people are attending, making sure people actually have a character to play.  (Depending on the game) making sure the characters are legal.  Asking for roll, asking for actions.  Pressing when faced with indecision.  In every conceivable way, the DM is wrangling players.



> But ultimately the question is why.  Is it because it's hard and you are somehow superior because you will do the "hard" things?  Or is it because the community is mostly nasty to new DM's?




Because it is hard.  At one point I and a second GM  ran a workshop to get people to become DM/GMs (mainly focused on non-D&D games, CHAMPIONS and Call of Cthulhu were very big at the time.  D&D was not.)  We got maybe half the people we hoped, and of those maybe a third went on to actually try to run a campaign.  About half of those stopped mid-way and didn't GM any more.  It had nothing to do with "the community" being mean.  _It is hard._


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Because I don’t think it’s a lie. I don’t think that it is significantly harder to DM than to play. I think that we’ve been conditioned to think this, and I think a lot of the common DMing techniques and practices can support that.
> 
> But I think that does not need to be the case.
> 
> ...




I never found it too hard either.  I have talked with an awful lot of prospective DM/GMs over the decades.  Most do find it hard enough to not warrant the time.  Regardless of high-prep games like D&D, Runequest, or Call of Cthulhu, or lower prep games like FATE and Dungeonworld, the amount and type of work required is unappealing.

Much like I find knitting, bird-watching, hunting, and NASCAR spectating hard and unappealing.


----------



## ccs (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Or you have a group of 4 with nowhere to play (IME the game is invariably at the DM's home) who then just drift apart.




IME concerning games at the DMs home  - we're all friends.  So why would we drift apart?  We'll just relocate the game.
I mean, other than family & business, people I don't know/don't like aren't coming over to my place....


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> The way to create more DMs is to remind people that it’s really not much tougher than playing and that they actually can do it. Also having more voices that are focused on the group activity rather than those of “my table, my way” proponents will also help.




I have to disagree with that.  Running a game is  much more difficult than just showing up as a player.  And there are all the shades in between from a very poor DM to a masterful DM.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Perhaps I should amend my statement a bit. DMing certainly _can _be hard. I just don’t think that it _must_ be so. And I think the perception of it being hard is more of an obstacle to people trying it out than the actual difficulty level. 

I generally find running 5E to be incredibly easy. The one exception I’d make to that is if you’re running one of the giant adventure books. Those are a pain to read through entirely. I don’t think I’d ever suggest one of those for a beginning DM, though.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

aco175 said:


> My OP had me thinking about some of the past threads we had here about things such as railroading and players and DMs both taking part in the game.  Some of the homebrew DMs talked about limiting races and classes.  Some have pages of new rules and restrictions for their home games.  There was talk about "my game, my rules" and such and I was getting the impression of some DMs thinking that if it is my game, then what I make is what we play regardless of what the players want to play.  I also got the idea that some were thinking that if players do not want to play in their world they can go away.
> 
> Is there different attitudes among DMs that make their own world vs. others that just uses FR or Greyhawk for example, or just runs the adventure books that come out?
> 
> Each table and group has different local rules they play with and changes to make things run better for them.  We discuss may rule changes here and everyone agrees with a few and not with others.  Is there a place where the rules are changed so much that it influences the game as a whole?  Does this influence the way some may look at other tables?  I'm not sure this last part comes into play, but I may take some ideas to make my game better (at least according to me and my local group).




I saw this go by, and while I don't have a strong feeling on the DM being more important than the other players (I think there's a gestalt at a TRPG table, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts; but while all parts are in principle equal, in practice some parts are more equal than others) I do run a homebrew campaign, and I do have limitations on races and classes, and I do think I have something to say about that.

TRPGS, like any form of fiction, require willing suspension of disblief from the audience and (in my experience) the author/s. If I'm going to be running campaigns in a world, I need to be willing to believe in that world, at least a little. That's going to be harder if there are things that don't make sense, or even if there are things that clash (past a threshold) with my tastes. Heck, the fact that published adventures literally make no sense to me when I read or play them (and if they don't make sense I can't suspend disbelief to play/run them) is probably connected to my running homebrew adventures exclusively.

There are some rules I usually run with (like no evil PCs) that are unquestionably about aesthetics of play, and preferences for the type/s of stories that emerge from play. Some of the class/race restrictions are, now that I think of it, coming from a similar place.

There's a line in what I'm quoting about "my game, my rules," and it doesn't feel from inside my head as though that's exactly what's happening; I won't disagree strongly with someone who believes otherwise, though. I don't *want* players to feel unwelcome at my table, and that's not really what my rules are about. I wouldn't doubt (much) though that there are players who would prefer not to play at my tables, and if the fit is that off I'm not sure it's a bad thing those players aren't playing at my tables.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Because it is hard.  At one point I and a second GM  ran a workshop to get people to become DM/GMs (mainly focused on non-D&D games, CHAMPIONS and Call of Cthulhu were very big at the time.  D&D was not.)  We got maybe half the people we hoped, and of those maybe a third went on to actually try to run a campaign.  About half of those stopped mid-way and didn't GM any more.  It had nothing to do with "the community" being mean.  _It is hard._



I don't understand that community argument.  Running any game well is a difficult and often daunting thing to do.  I remember how damn nervous I used to get before a game, like I was about to give a speech on stage in front of an audience.   Now, I personally get immense satisfaction from running games and don't particularly like being a player.  I get bored.  The difficulty of running the game keeps me engaged and invested.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2020)

Nebulous said:


> I don't understand that community argument.  Running any game well is a difficult and often daunting thing to do.  I remember how damn nervous I used to get before a game, like I was about to give a speech on stage in front of an audience.   Now, I personally get immense satisfaction from running games and don't particularly like being a player.  I get bored.  The difficulty of running the game keeps me engaged and invested.




Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless.  I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running.  I'm too averse to attention.  By the time that trait fully developed, DMing/GMing was just something I did -- much like group speaking became once my job required it and I could no longer avoid it.

I like being a player.  I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though.  There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> If the DM leaves, then, someone else will become the DM... People are people.  I suppose, if the DM leaves, it will destroy the campaign, while, when a player leaves, the same does not happen, but, in a traditional sense, the DM is no more important than any of the players.  I play D&D to have fun with my mates, not to become the lord of the table.



I’ve continued several campaigns after a DM left, as well.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

I don't know whether I would say that GMing is _hard _per se, but I would say that it is _challenging _in ways that being a player isn't. It is a greater responsibility. Not everyone wants that.

There's a certain bar that exists when you're a GM. A bare minimum to be able to run a game. Either you need to prep (which requires at least a modicum of time and effort), or be able to improvise well (which doesn't necessarily come naturally at first). Ideally, both. Whereas the minimum for a player is just showing up.

If the GM is off their game for the night, it will impact the game almost without question. If a particular player is unusually quiet (ie, because they're not feeling well), odds are that another player will just fill in. This is only natural, since there is typically only one GM but multiple players. (I'll grant that this dynamic could be different in less common situations, such as a solo game.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless.  I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running.  I'm too averse to attention.




I'm something of an introvert, as well, and I specifically started running tables at game stores out of a specific desire to get out of my comfort zone, game with new people. It's been fun.



Nagol said:


> I like being a player.  I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though.  There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.




I agree about enjoying being a player. I find that playing helps me be a better DM. It's important enough to me that I've stuck with a campaign that is really not to my tastes for more than a year, just because I feel the need for balance.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Yeah, I was lucky enough to start running before my brain fully developed and I was still (somewhat) fearless.  I probably wouldn't have tried if I waited until late teens or later to start running.  I'm too averse to attention.  By the time that trait fully developed, DMing/GMing was just something I did -- much like group speaking became once my job required it and I could no longer avoid it.
> 
> I like being a player.  I find it fun and enormously rewarding to be able to focus on this one thing and not worry about tracking/dealing with the universe. It happens very rarely these days though.  There are few enough GMs and less time I can devote to multiple games.




I bet if you told your group - next campaign I want to play instead of DM - I bet someone would step up and volunteer.


----------



## generic (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I bet if you told your group - next campaign I want to play instead of DM - I bet someone would step up and volunteer.



The great illusion is that the DM has something magical which the players do not have access to.  Will I continue to DM for my group instead of playing?  Yes, I will.  But, this is because I like DMing, and, in this situation, no one else is interested in running the game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> The great illusion is that the DM has something magical which the players do not have access to.  Will I continue to DM for my group instead of playing?  Yes, I will.  But, this is because I like DMing, and, in this situation, no one else is interested in running the game.




How do you know if you've never given them the opportunity?


----------



## generic (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> How do you know if you've never given them the opportunity?



Oh, I have, in fact, I've asked them if they would like to DM.  I've even encouraged them to do so.  Everyone just said that they'd rather not, which is something I'm fine with.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

prabe said:


> I agree about enjoying being a player. I find that playing helps me be a better DM. It's important enough to me that I've stuck with a campaign that is really not to my tastes for more than a year, just because I feel the need for balance.



I agree. In my case being a player fuels my desire to DM. I struggle to find the creativity and drive to DM when I'm not also playing in a campaign. I need to play to recharge my DM batteries. Fortunately, my group typically runs two campaigns on alternating weeks, which is ideal. Although I do really enjoy when both campaigns are being run by other DMs and I just get to play (at least for a while, until I start to get the itch to run again).


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Oh, I have, in fact, I've asked them if they would like to DM.  I've even encouraged them to do so.  Everyone just said that they'd rather not, which is something I'm fine with.




Curious if you asked them why.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> How do you know if you've never given them the opportunity?




That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to. I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing. Others have never done it, and refuse to do it. Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.

GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone _wants _to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

macd21 said:


> That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to.




Yes, I did.  I intentionally jumped to an assumption to drive discussion so that I could see what kind of opportunities were given.  



> I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing.




Playing the first time was difficult as well.  

Dm'ing doesn't have to be a huge time sink.  For some reason those that sink a huge amount of time into it are idolized but that's not necessary and doesn't necessarily make for more fun adventures.

It's more fun to do something you are comfortable doing.



> Others have never done it, and refuse to do it.




Why?



> Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.




Or they haven't had enough practice to develop their DM skills.  And players refusing to join their games points to the community being "mean" to new DM's that I previously spoke about.



> GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone _wants _to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.




But the question always comes back to why they don't want to.  I think you are dismissing the social pressures that can be mitigated by proper community behavior.


----------



## generic (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Curious if you asked them why.



"Too much work for me at the moment", which is a myth I'm trying to dispell.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Nebulous said:


> I have to disagree with that.  Running a game is  much more difficult than just showing up as a player.  And there are all the shades in between from a very poor DM to a masterful DM.




I don’t know if that’s the case. Also, there’s a huge gulf between being poor and masterful. Getting better at a skill requires practice. If no one practices because they’re convinced the job is too hard or that the game will suck since they aren’t great at DMing....then yeah, no one’s going to try it. 

Since we’re talking about DMs, I’ve been sticking to D&D, but I’ve played plenty of other games where there is no prep needed. So the GM and the players all show up having given whatever amount of thought to the game beforehand that they’d like to give. 

I’ve very much adapted my DMing style with the GMing techniques that fit those other games. I don’t feel the pressure of massive amounts of prep, or of knowing every rule, or of creating an entire world for the PCs. 

To me, those are the more difficult and certainly time consuming elements typically connected with DMing. And there are definitely ways to mitigate them. 



macd21 said:


> That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to. I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing. Others have never done it, and refuse to do it. Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.
> 
> GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone _wants _to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.




So, if someone approached you and said “I’m thinking of GMing a game”, what would you tell them? That it’s really hard and their game will suck until they get better?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I bet if you told your group - next campaign I want to play instead of DM - I bet someone would step up and volunteer.




Name any amount you like. I'll take that bet.  When I was last burnt out (a couple of year stretch) no one GMed at all.  We played board games, chatted, etc.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Name any amount you like. I'll take that bet.  When I was last burnt out (a couple of year stretch) no one GMed at all.  We played board games, chatted, etc.




I've been in groups that experienced this.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Playing the first time was difficult as well.
> 
> Dm'ing doesn't have to be a huge time sink.  For some reason those that sink a huge amount of time into it are idolized but that's not necessary and doesn't necessarily make for more fun adventures.
> 
> It's more fun to do something you are comfortable doing.



Playing the first time might be difficult if you haven't familiarized yourself with the game. Even then, those who are familiar with the rules will generally hold your hand and walk you through it.

Can you honestly imagine DMing without being familiar with the game? I can't. That's up there in "showing up for the exam in your underwear without having studied" levels of nightmare IMO.

Time saving techniques are great, but they're really an advanced technique for anyone who isn't already familiar and comfortable with improvisation (since they tend to leverage that skill a lot). Hands down, the most common mistake I see inexperienced DMs make is over-preparation. Because it helps them feel comfortable and secure. Unfortunately, it can also easily lead to stress and burnout, which makes them not want to DM.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> So, if someone approached you and said “I’m thinking of GMing a game”, what would you tell them? That it’s really hard and their game will suck until they get better?




Why would I do that? I’ve had people do just that, and I’ve volunteered to play in their game and given advice when they asked for it. Telling them it will be hard and that they’ll suck would just put them off, and the only way you get good GMs is to have people go through that stage and get better.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 15, 2020)

macd21 said:


> That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to. I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing. Others have never done it, and refuse to do it. Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.
> 
> GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone _wants _to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.



If I want to game, I have to run.  We used to have two other players that GM'd every now and then to give me a break when I need one. One of those players moved cross the country and the other burned bridges as a LARP GM with my godbrother.
Now, my godbrother would GM if given a chance but he is not very good at it in a tabletop setting unless it is World of Darkness. When the two players above were in our group, they made it clear after one session of him running fantasy that they would not come back for a second session run by him. Knowing he was inexperienced, I was willing to cut him some slack and provided advice on pacing and other elements where he is weak. However, he never took the advice and the other players refused to game with him after another session. When we brought in new players to the group, he offered again to run and his same weaknesses as a GM resulted in the others refusing to let him run (after two sessions, we were still stuck in the same building of a a side encounter being attacked by more hordes of orcs).
There is also one other person that has DM'd D&D, but he refuses to run as his best friend will min-max and take advantage of his inexperience with the rules and DMing (which he will not try when I run).


----------



## atanakar (Feb 15, 2020)

DMs are not the most important person at the table, but its like a box of Harry Potter candies, you don't know what you get until you taste it. Many poeple want to be DMs but only a few are truly good at it.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> If the DM leaves, then, someone else will become the DM...



Not necessarily.

I suppose if there's other DMs in that game as players then sure, one of them is likely to take over.  But my own experience is that most of the time there's far more just-players than there are player-DMs*, meaning that if the DM leaves the group either drifts apart or moves on to another activity entirely (Magic cards, IME).

* - and when there are player-DMs often they're already running their own game while playing in this one, and don't have time to take on a second game as DM.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through).



I have.

One guy I used to both play with and DM was an absolute horror as a player for a whole list of reasons; let's just say that rather nasty arguments were commonplace whenever he played.

Then he started DMing, and somehow he was able to channel all those bad aspects and all that ego into becoming a quite good and entertaining DM for many years.  The only thing that prevented me from playing in his game longer than I did was time constraints.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s never been my experience. Mostly we play at the house of whoever has the best house for getting together and playing at.



Thing is, the DM has gobs more material* to haul around than do any of the players; making it far easier to just run at the DM's place - which also makes the DM the host.

* - board, minis, props and supplies, game notes past and present, rulebooks, character sheets**, dice, etc.
** - standing rule here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions.

If I'm DMing a full session "on the road" the stuff I have to take with me nearly fills the trunk of my car...except the board, which doesn't fit and has to go in the back seat.


> we don’t come to my little apartment when I’m gonna run a game, we go to my buddy’s place. That doesn’t make him more important than other players



Actually it does, in that if he* decides he doesn't want you there you're stuck looking for a place to play.

* - or someone else living there who's not involved in the game, which IME is more common.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Because I don’t think it’s a lie. I don’t think that it is significantly harder to DM than to play.



I do.

As a player I can focus on my own character and on whatever's going on around it, and otherwise switch my brain off - particularly if I'm playing a dumb Fighter and-or when my PC isn't involved in the action of the moment. 

But as DM I have to always be aware of what the party - and each PC - is doing, of what the game world is doing around them, of where the PCs are on the map, and of the personalities and reactions of any NPCs they meet.  I also have to know the mechanics of whatever foes they're fighting and play those foes as best I can.

Add to this I also have to take notes on proceedings (my memory's not that good!), while at the same time trying to "read the room" and assess how the players are responding to whatever's going on.  And sometimes be a referee.

In short, I need to be "on" a much higher percentage of the time when DMing than I do when playing.

Further, while a player can largely ignore the game between sessions if s/he wants, the same isn't usually true of a DM.  Sure there's some who can wing everything on the fly, much like a rapper who makes up the words as he goes along, but those are a rare breed: most DMs, like most rappers, have to prep what they're doing at least to some extent.



> There are plenty of ways to make the job easier, and plenty of ways for the group to work together. I’m personally not the rules guru at my table. I lean on one player to be my spell guru, and another for combat rules. I have another player track initiative. We divvy up the maintenance jobs of the game so that the DM can focus on the NPCs and the world as they reapond to the PCs.



This presumes having players who are willing to take on these sort of tasks.  Not all are.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

I guess I should give a bit of context to my remarks above: I'm used to systems where a lot of rules and mechanics are not player-facing, which - both as player and DM - is how I like it.

DMing would, of course, be somewhat easier if running a system where a greater proportion of the mechanics are player-side; by the same token, playing in such a system would likely be a bit harder.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, the DM has gobs more material* to haul around than do any of the players; making it far easier to just run at the DM's place - which also makes the DM the host.
> 
> * - board, minis, props and supplies, game notes past and present, rulebooks, character sheets**, dice, etc.
> ** - standing rule here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions.
> ...



yeah, you and I have very different games and friend groups.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 15, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I do.
> 
> As a player I can focus on my own character and on whatever's going on around it, and otherwise switch my brain off - particularly if I'm playing a dumb Fighter and-or when my PC isn't involved in the action of the moment.
> 
> ...




To me most of this sounds like choices that people are making that make things harder. 

A DM chooses to keep copious notes. Players choose to turn their brains off when playing. Or choose to not pitch in to help the game.

These are exactly the kinds of things that I’m talking about that can be changed and make the game easier for the DM.



Lanefan said:


> I guess I should give a bit of context to my remarks above: I'm used to systems where a lot of rules and mechanics are not player-facing, which - both as player and DM - is how I like it.
> 
> DMing would, of course, be somewhat easier if running a system where a greater proportion of the mechanics are player-side; by the same token, playing in such a system would likely be a bit harder.




What mechanics are not player facing that you’re worried about sharing? Initiative? Something else?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> To me most of this sounds like choices that people are making that make things harder.
> 
> A DM chooses to keep copious notes.



My notes are anything but copious, but I find keeping even the bare-bones ones I do throws me off all the other stuff.



> Players choose to turn their brains off when playing. Or choose to not pitch in to help the game.



Which is their right.  As long as someone's doing the mapping and someone's doing the party-side treasury, we're good.



> What mechanics are not player facing that you’re worried about sharing? Initiative? Something else?



We use a simplified initiative system, players and DM alike.

Saving throw charts (for characters and items), to-hit matrix (in 3e, BAB), fumble and wild magic tables, xp calculation, properties of unidentified magic items, and a whole bunch of other less-common things are strictly DM-facing in our games.  Players roll and add their bonuses, DM worries about the rest.

As a player in 3e, where BAB and some saves are shifted to player-side, I found them annoying.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> My notes are anything but copious, but I find keeping even the bare-bones ones I do throws me off all the other stuff.
> 
> Which is their right.  As long as someone's doing the mapping and someone's doing the party-side treasury, we're good.
> 
> ...




Okay,  that’s a lot of cognitive load that could be shared that you’re choosing to take on. Which is fine, if that’s your preference, but it’s a choice that you’re making.

Even if those things were the default expectation of a DM these days, I’d still tell a DM who was learning to share that load.

Perhaps a player not knowing their saving throws or chance to hit has some benefit to play that you enjoy, but that’s not how most editions work.

I take more notes as a player than as a DM, and I ask my players to do the same. So this way I don’t have to worry about that. Same with initiative and other similar things.

Honestly, it may be their prerogative to not have to do any of that, and to not pay attention unless it’s their turn, but that sounds like poor play, to me.

Maybe I’m missing something....easy to imagine since I’m not actually at your games....but it sounds to me like your game demands a lot more of the DM and less of the players than what I’d expect would be typical.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay,  that’s a lot of cognitive load that could be shared that you’re choosing to take on. Which is fine, if that’s your preference, but it’s a choice that you’re making.
> 
> Even if those things were the default expectation of a DM these days, I’d still tell a DM who was learning to share that load.
> 
> ...



While those are all good things to do if you are looking to lighten your load as a DM, I don't think they are at all typical. It really works best with experienced players who don't mind the added loaded.

I, myself, as a player take much more extensive notes as a player than as a DM. However, I don't expect that of my players, so when I DM I take my own notes. Besides, my players don't know what's important. An innocuous detail that they overlook could be quite important. I like to note things like that so that a dozen sessions down the road I can check back and see whether this was a detail that they've discovered (or not).

Imagine if you were an experienced DM introducing new players to D&D. You almost certainly don't want to offload your work on those players. At least not until they get more comfortable with the game in general. Casual players may also not want those responsibilities.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 16, 2020)

The DM is currently the one performing the most important role in the game, but is not the most important person in the social group.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> While those are all good things to do if you are looking to lighten your load as a DM, I don't think they are at all typical. It really works best with experienced players who don't mind the added loaded.
> 
> I, myself, as a player take much more extensive notes as a player than as a DM. However, I don't expect that of my players, so when I DM I take my own notes. Besides, my players don't know what's important. An innocuous detail that they overlook could be quite important. I like to note things like that so that a dozen sessions down the road I can check back and see whether this was a detail that they've discovered (or not).
> 
> Imagine if you were an experienced DM introducing new players to D&D. You almost certainly don't want to offload your work on those players. At least not until they get more comfortable with the game in general. Casual players may also not want those responsibilities.




Individually, none of these are all that difficult. What makes it challenging for a DM is to perform all these tasks along with those that are essential to the role. 

Sharing them isn’t really asking that much. I think it also helps engage the players and keeps them more involved in the game, and less inclined to stop paying attention. 

It also exposes them to elements of the game that maybe they’re not as aware of, which will likely make them better players and more ready to DM.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 16, 2020)

Short answer: no.
Long answer: noooooo.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Individually, none of these are all that difficult. What makes it challenging for a DM is to perform all these tasks along with those that are essential to the role.
> 
> Sharing them isn’t really asking that much. I think it also helps engage the players and keeps them more involved in the game, and less inclined to stop paying attention.
> 
> It also exposes them to elements of the game that maybe they’re not as aware of, which will likely make them better players and more ready to DM.




My players are my family. I mainly play, because my kids asked to learn the game. However, even though most of them are teens, they are nowhere near ready to take on the role of the DM. I am currently working on getting them to take better notes (a skill some of them GREATLY need in school as well). I am also working on getting them to review certain parts of the PHB before each session. In time, hopefully some of them will be able to take some of the maintenance chores off of me, but for the foreseeable future, I am the only one who does this. And it is a TON of work, especially since I am just as new to this as the oldest kid at home is.

I would LOVE to have another group nearby in which I could just be a player and learn from that end, but even if my very full schedule would allow that, we live in too small of a community. I have thought about finding an online game, but the schedule thing is an issue.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Individually, none of these are all that difficult. What makes it challenging for a DM is to perform all these tasks along with those that are essential to the role.
> 
> Sharing them isn’t really asking that much. I think it also helps engage the players and keeps them more involved in the game, and less inclined to stop paying attention.
> 
> It also exposes them to elements of the game that maybe they’re not as aware of, which will likely make them better players and more ready to DM.



Maybe for your group. Like I said, I don't think this is nearly as typical or expected as you seem to be suggesting it is (or ought to be).


----------



## Eltab (Feb 16, 2020)

Is the DM the most important person at the table?  Well, the session doesn't happen if he can't get there.  If the DM is distracted and not paying attention, the result is unsatisfying for everybody.  Whereas a single player can miss and the session goes on.

But ... With great power comes great responsibility.  The DM has to provide an enjoyable experience, both with his own efforts and by managing the rest of the individuals into behaving as a group, IC and OOC.

Do not look at the question "Who is most important?" and answer "I have the power!".   Instead, look at it through the lens of Servant Leadership.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Maybe for your group. Like I said, I don't think this is nearly as typical or expected as you seem to be suggesting it is (or ought to be).




Yeah, it's more "ought to be", I think. Silly comparison in a way, but my father once told me that if people waited until they were ready to be parents to have kids, no one would have kids. Same thing here....you have to do it to learn it. And others have to be willing to let you learn it, and try and help with that.

I'm not saying that my suggestions would work for everyone....there will always be exceptions. But I just think that the more we treat DMing as this difficult job that only few are suited for, the more likely that will be exactly what it is.



The Green Hermit said:


> My players are my family. I mainly play, because my kids asked to learn the game. However, even though most of them are teens, they are nowhere near ready to take on the role of the DM. I am currently working on getting them to take better notes (a skill some of them GREATLY need in school as well). I am also working on getting them to review certain parts of the PHB before each session. In time, hopefully some of them will be able to take some of the maintenance chores off of me, but for the foreseeable future, I am the only one who does this. And it is a TON of work, especially since I am just as new to this as the oldest kid at home is.
> 
> I would LOVE to have another group nearby in which I could just be a player and learn from that end, but even if my very full schedule would allow that, we live in too small of a community. I have thought about finding an online game, but the schedule thing is an issue.




First off, that's awesome that you learned the game for your kids!

Being a new DM and also having new players....who also happen to be your children....that's gonna be a pretty tricky thing. The note taking is probably a great start because, as you say, it has potential to be helpful in real life. 

If they're teens, then I'd likely suggest testing the waters a bit to see what they can do to help. You may be surprised. And if not, then you know for sure they're not ready for certain things. 

Something like looking up a rule or spell that's come up. Instead of play halting entirely while you look up the spell, have one of the kids do it, while you move on the next player's turn. After he next player has gone, have the other one read the spell entry so you can all determine how it worked. That kind of thing. 

I usually start off each session by asking one of the players to remind me what happened. Usually, everyone jumps in to help summarize everything that happened, and then we get started. I find that's a good way to engage them quickly.

Maybe use index cards for initiative, and have one of them cycle through the cards after each turn and announce who's next. 

It's certainly possible that these ideas may not work, but I'd say give it a try. You may find your job getting a bit easier as DM, and maybe the kids get a better grasp of all the things that are going into the game. I know they're young, but my friends and I were pre-teens when we really got going with D&D, and I'm sure plenty of other folks on these boards started at a similar age. We were far from perfect at it, and there were plenty of things that we pretty much made up our own way of doing, but we were having fun and learning.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2020)

Swimming through the thread and replying as I see stuff:



Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree. A good player going along with a bad GM might make it palatable where it otherwise wouldn't be, but it won't make it good.
> 
> Whereas the game is likely be good with a good GM, irrespective of player skill.
> 
> Everyone's fun is important, but the skill of the GM is more relevant to the quality of the experience than the skill of the player(s), IME. Part of that is in fact because a good GM recognizes that everyone's fun is important, whereas an unskilled/bad GM might not.




I've seen more than a few groups that stayed together despite the DM, not because.  The group was great - got together well, engaged, so on and so forth, but, the DM was just flat out bad.  So, yeah, it does happen.  If the group is lucky, someone will come along and inherit that group.



Sacrosanct said:


> /snip
> 
> I've never seen a good DM who wasn't also a good player (they make some of the best because they appreciate what the other DM is going through). But I have seen good players who make poor DMs (largely because of disorganization, poor planning, lack of rules knowledge, etc)




Very true.  And, I'd take it a step further that if you are a player who is always a player, and never a DM, then you probably aren't a very good player.  It takes getting into the big daddy chair a few times just to recognize what a good game actually looks like from the outside, rather than simply inside your own head.

IOW, get out there and run a game.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> First off, that's awesome that you learned the game for your kids!
> 
> Being a new DM and also having new players....who also happen to be your children....that's gonna be a pretty tricky thing. The note taking is probably a great start because, as you say, it has potential to be helpful in real life.
> 
> ...




I made my oldest take on two characters this time, so that I only have to do one on top of DMing, so that's a start! Other than that, though, the two oldest have access to our campaign journal and I make them write up our progress before I fill in the missing pieces and smooth it all out. I am also having all of the kids take turns with reading the previous session's journal at the start of the new session. (I take part in this rotation, too.)

The older two are getting pretty good at looking stuff up mid-session. It's the pre-session prep that they are weak on, although they are getting better. I have absolutely no idea how they can keep track of their inventories, though. To my eyes, they have no rhyme or reason.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't know whether I would say that GMing is _hard _per se, but I would say that it is _challenging _in ways that being a player isn't. It is a greater responsibility. Not everyone wants that.
> 
> There's a certain bar that exists when you're a GM. A bare minimum to be able to run a game. Either you need to prep (which requires at least a modicum of time and effort), or be able to improvise well (which doesn't necessarily come naturally at first). Ideally, both. Whereas the minimum for a player is just showing up.
> 
> If the GM is off their game for the night, it will impact the game almost without question. If a particular player is unusually quiet (ie, because they're not feeling well), odds are that another player will just fill in. This is only natural, since there is typically only one GM but multiple players. (I'll grant that this dynamic could be different in less common situations, such as a solo game.)




I think this maybe where we're getting tripped up a bit.  DMing isn't really "hard" in the sense that it is difficult to understand or grasp.  Calculus (at least for me) is hard.  DMing isn't so much hard as just a lot more work than playing.  And, there really isn't any way around that in D&D.  No matter what you do, it's going to be more work for the DM to run a game than it is for the player.  Has to be.  Even if I'm running a campaign in a box style Adventure Path module, there's ALWAYS stuff that needs to be done.

Heck, even if I'm running that AP over Fantasy Grounds where everything is coded in by someone else, and all I have to do is run it, I still need to read the bloody thing and understand how it all fits together.  And, then, over the course of the campaign, adjust bits and pieces as the campaign progresses.  It's always going to be more work.  That's unavoidable.  

Now, on the plus side, there ARE things like Fantasy Grounds which automate so much of the scut work of adventure design.  No more faffing about with stat blocks and whatnot, you can drag and drop so much.  To the point where my prep has become very, very easy compared to years and editions past.  But, in any case, it's STILL more work than just being a player.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Feb 16, 2020)

I don't know if I'd say _more_ important, but the role of the GM is definitely more challenging (and less replaceable) than the role of the Player. I enjoy playing as both, and I put in more work than the average player in our local scene as a Player (helping keep things on track, reminding other players of what's happening, keeping notes), but it's still significantly less mental load than when I'm GMing, even when I'm running the game entirely on improv in response to player decisions (which is a skill that most new GMs haven't had the experience to learn).

The GM takes on significantly more responsibilities than the players do by the rules of the game and by the standards of most tables. Almost every tabletop RPG I've read the rules for has placed the burden of managing the entire table's expectations (both pregame and in-game) alongside adjucating rules disputes solely on the shoulders of the GM. Even if that comes naturally to you (alongside the improv skills, memory retention, and understanding of story structure that hallmarks quality GMing), pretending that it's not more of an investment or challenge than being a player feels silly.

I always thank and appreciate the people who run games for me, because I know from personal experience that GMing can be an exhausting experience, much more so than merely engaging at the table as a player. When you go to a house party, the host isn't "more important" than the guests, but they still deserve appreciation for the work they put in to throwing and managing the party, even if the entire experience was easy for them.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> To me most of this sounds like choices that people are making that make things harder.
> 
> A DM chooses to keep copious notes. Players choose to turn their brains off when playing. Or choose to not pitch in to help the game.
> 
> These are exactly the kinds of things that I’m talking about that can be changed and make the game easier for the DM.




What you consider choices are what other people consider inherent elements of playing an RPG. If I take copious notes as a DM, it’s because I want/need those notes. Eliminating them from the game will reduce my enjoyment of the game, not make it easier. A lot of people play RPGs because the can ‘turn their brains off,’ ask them to do a lot of work and it stops being fun and turns into a chore.

You keep insisting that DMing is easy and that more people would do it, if only we changed how we play games. But we play games the way we do because it’s enjoyable this way. Change all that and the game becomes less enjoyable.

The reason the DM is the most important person at the table is because not everyone likes DMing. Some people find the work involved enjoyable, others do not. Some people get a kick out of running a game, others do not. Even if you reduced the workload, you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in DMs, because most players just don’t want to DM.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 16, 2020)

I do think the DM has the most important role at the table. A good or bad DM can make or break the game. Whereas one or two bad players can still make for a great experience, as long as the DM is good. The DM also has the most work with running and prepping the game.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2020)

macd21 said:


> What you consider choices are what other people consider inherent elements of playing an RPG. If I take copious notes as a DM, it’s because I want/need those notes. Eliminating them from the game will reduce my enjoyment of the game, not make it easier. A lot of people play RPGs because the can ‘turn their brains off,’ ask them to do a lot of work and it stops being fun and turns into a chore.




Need =/= enjoy.  Having players that take that work load off of the DM can increase the DM's enjoyment simply by virtue of reducing the DM's work load.  Now, if the DM is enjoying note taking, then, fair enough.  But, not everyone enjoys note taking but, most people do agree that campaigns do require a fair degree of note making.  

Additionally, a player who sits at the table to "turn their brains off" is basically just a waste of space.  They are passive consumers who contribute nothing to the game that you couldn't get from an automated die roller.  Having just had a player exactly like this leave our group, I can say that a player who is nothing but a passive consumer is one of the worst kinds of players.  They contribute so little to the game that they may as well not even be sitting there.  

If you are a player like this, a player who just wants to "turn his or her brain off", quit expecting other people to entertain you.  Get off your lazy backside and actually contribute to the game or step away from the table and let someone else play who actually contributes to the game.

I have so little patience for this kind of player anymore.  They just suck all the air out of the room.



> You keep insisting that DMing is easy and that more people would do it, if only we changed how we play games. But we play games the way we do because it’s enjoyable this way. Change all that and the game becomes less enjoyable.




That's not necessarily true.  Just because someone has never run a game, it doesn't follow that if that person were to run a game or two, they would suddenly enjoy the game less.  It's just as easily true that they might find the experience more enjoyable since they are no longer just passive consumers but actual, active, contributing members of the group.



> The reason the DM is the most important person at the table is because not everyone likes DMing. Some people find the work involved enjoyable, others do not. Some people get a kick out of running a game, others do not. Even if you reduced the workload, you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in DMs, because most players just don’t want to DM.




Not sure that's true.  I certainly saw a huge uptick people willing to run games in 4e where DMing was so much easier than in earlier editions.  Given the MASSIVE growth of the hobby in the 5e era, the notion that "most" players just don't want to DM can't be true.  Someone is running all those new games.  

Then again, I'm fortunate in that our group is full of people who run games.    Makes those who just want to play stand out so much worse to be honest because it becomes so blindingly obvious that the "passive consumer" players aren't driving anything and the campaigns inevitably revolve around the active players, all of whom have DMing experience.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 16, 2020)

The idea that a player is just a ‘passive consumer’ because he doesn’t want to run games is ridiculous. A player who ‘turns his brain off’ at the table is still contributing to the game.

As for who is running those 5ed games: new DMs, just as there’s new players. With every new batch of gamers introduced to the hobby, there’ll be a certain number who enjoy DMing - it’s just that they’re a minority.


----------



## Shiroiken (Feb 16, 2020)

In general, yes the GM is the most important person for any game. That doesn't mean that the players are not important, but individually they contribute less to the game.  A crappy GM will likely find himself with few/no players, so they can't be a tyrant.  







Wolfpack48 said:


> I always liked the term "referee" better -- it implies neutrality and doesn't have importance overly tied to it, as "Dungeon Master" and "Game Master" do. Yes, they run the scenario, but the best referees let the chips fall where they may without trying to influence proceedings.



 The GM wears 3 hats: author, storyteller, and judge. When designing the adventure, they are working as an author, trying to design the best plot and challenges they can. During the game, they start and end with storyteller, describing the setup and epilogue. During the game, they should allow the players to react to the premise/challenge, and determine the results fairly. Sometimes that last part gets lost in the desire to force a campaign to continue  (or by a tyrant who lords it over his players).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 16, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, it's more "ought to be", I think. Silly comparison in a way, but my father once told me that if people waited until they were ready to be parents to have kids, no one would have kids. Same thing here....you have to do it to learn it. And others have to be willing to let you learn it, and try and help with that.
> 
> I'm not saying that my suggestions would work for everyone....there will always be exceptions. But I just think that the more we treat DMing as this difficult job that only few are suited for, the more likely that will be exactly what it is.



They are good suggestions overall. I expect a table that successfully implemented them would function like a well oiled machine.

But I do think that they're more in the 'nice to have' category. While it makes running the game easier at the table, lots of those things can be handled by the DM without significant mental overhead. 

For example, when I DM I keep my notes brief and to the point. One or two sentences per scene. Just the facts. Similarly, when I do initiative I just use a sheet of paper and write down the order vertically on it, leaving lots of space between entries (this way I can jot initiatives down as they are declared, rather than needing to do any mental sorting beyond basic greater than or less than).

My point being that there are lots of little tricks the DM can use to reduce their workload without offloading onto the players. Although a new DM isn't necessarily going to know about them. The same is true for offloading work onto your players.

You can't generally offload the primary workload however. Prepping and running the game is work, and not everyone wants to do it.

When new GMs ask me about advice for running their own game, one of the first things I tell them is something to the effect of:

"That's great! Try not to stress about it or overwork yourself with too much preparation. Just do your best to run a fun game. It probably won't be perfect your first time, so don't waste time worrying about making it perfect. The more you work at this the better you'll be."

I certainly don't focus on the fact that GMing can be a considerable amount of work. Most players grok that it's work even if not all comprehend the amount of work involved, so if someone chooses to try GMing that tells me that they aren't put off by a little work, which is a good thing for a GM. I'm not sugar coating it either though. I think it's important to manage expectations by pointing out that it is a skill. I've known more than one GM who had potential but gave up on it because their first game wasn't the idealized vision of perfection they'd imagined it would be.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 16, 2020)

macd21 said:


> What you consider choices are what other people consider inherent elements of playing an RPG. If I take copious notes as a DM, it’s because I want/need those notes. Eliminating them from the game will reduce my enjoyment of the game, not make it easier. A lot of people play RPGs because the can ‘turn their brains off,’ ask them to do a lot of work and it stops being fun and turns into a chore.
> 
> You keep insisting that DMing is easy and that more people would do it, if only we changed how we play games. But we play games the way we do because it’s enjoyable this way. Change all that and the game becomes less enjoyable.
> 
> The reason the DM is the most important person at the table is because not everyone likes DMing. Some people find the work involved enjoyable, others do not. Some people get a kick out of running a game, others do not. Even if you reduced the workload, you wouldn’t see much of an uptick in DMs, because most players just don’t want to DM.




But they are all choices. Taking notes or doing massive amounts of prep are choices that a DM makes. If these are enjoyable to the DM, then I wouldn’t suggest changing it for that DM.

I’m not as concerned about decreasing the workload of experienced DMs as I am with letting potential new DMs know that it doesn’t have to be as complex as many claim. 

I also think that a DM asking a player to do initiative (or whatever task) isn’t asking a lot. It’s asking the player to take over one task of many that the DM typically handles. Some players may not be suited for a given task...that’s fine. But I’d be surprised if there wasn’t one player present that wouldn’t mind doing it. 

Bottom line, I don’t think that the perception that DMing is significantly more difficult than playing is very helpful. I do think more people would try it. I’m not saying it’s for everyone....some folks simply won’t like it, and that’s fine. 

But if you polled players on reasons why they don’t DM, I’m reasonably sure that “I think it’s too hard” or “I’m afraid I won’t do a good job” would be pretty common answers.


----------



## bloodtide (Feb 16, 2020)

Yes, the DM is the most important person at the table, as far as the role in the game.  The players are most often just there to have a good time, and very little else.  The DM bears the burden of running the whole game.  And while it is true some players can sometimes help the game along, most often they will simply choose not too.

More then anything else, running the game is the thing the DM does that is most important.  This really comes down to what makes a good DM.  And by running the game, this is often taking the roll of babysitter.  Still, that is very important when one or more players act immature.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 16, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I mean, is the GM a highly placed government official?  An influential celebrity?  A time traveler from the future, here to save humanity, apparently by way of a tabletop role playing game?  No?  Okay then - so the folks at your table are.. just folks.




You don't know my table!  I'm third in the Line of Ascension of the Consortium from what you would call the year 10,432.  



> And, if your GM is sitting down to run a game, and anywhere near the front of their mind is, "Ah!  I am the most important person in the room!" they are probably going to do a crummy job running the game, and see how important they feel when the players go... "Dude, it isn't all about you.  This isn't fun.  We're going to go bowling."




I would argue that the DM is the single most important participant only because there would be no game without them.  But the DM shouldn't have a big head and act like nobody else matters.  When I run a campaign I tend to view it as "ours" rather than mine.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I would argue that the DM is the single most important participant only because there would be no game without them.  But the DM shouldn't have a big head and act like nobody else matters.  When I run a campaign I tend to view it as "ours" rather than mine.




I agree with this, though in common usage "mine" seems to show up more than "ours." Probably because while there is overlap in the player groups, they are not identical. And because the world is mostly coming out of my head.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 16, 2020)

aco175 said:


> *Is the DM the most important person at the table*




That depends, am I the one DM'ing in this instance?


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Feb 16, 2020)

of course the dm is the most important person at the table (in the context of the game).  stop beating around the bush people.  its nothing personal and they may not be the most important person IRL but to say otherwise is a little ridiculous.  if the dm ISN'T the most important person to maintaining the fun you are currently having than almost ASSUREDLY the big head a lot of people are worried about someone having in this thread is certainly being had by a party member somewhere in the group.  for everyone to have fun the dm is going to be doing dm things.  he has the biggest job.  the job of ensuring everyone is provided for.  others can contribute to that but the dm's role implicitly involves it.  they keep the game going at all times as opposed to being simply a player.  bad dm?  get a new dm.  bad player?  just get rid of the player and replace them when you can.  very big difference to how important the roles here are.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

aco175 said:


> players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot..



I am "the" GM of my group. Very occasionally I play in a Burning Wheel game GMed by another member of the group.

Every game we play I have initiated. We have several different games ongoing (Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, a few MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Burning Wheel, quite-a-while-on-hiatus 4e D&D) and also play the odd one-shot. When we meet for a session sometimes I initiate a particular game (eg if I've prepped for something in particular). Sometimes we take a vote. Sometimes the host (very rarely me) makes a call.

When you talk about _helping the DM_ and _not derailing the plot_, it sounds like you're saying the players should go along with the GM's railroad. That's not how any of our games work.



Sacrosanct said:


> Good players respect the efforts of the DM and work within the DM's world and don't try to overturn the apple cart by forcing their own ideas into the game world.



I generally expect that players to inject their own ideas into the gameworld. To me that's a pretty basic part of RPGing. It's a shared, collectively-created fiction.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2020)

Shiroiken said:


> The GM wears 3 hats: author, storyteller, and judge. When designing the adventure, they are working as an author, trying to design the best plot and challenges they can.



How does this fit RPG systems and approaches that don't have a "the adventure" or "the plot" established in advance?


----------



## Shiroiken (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> How does this fit RPG systems and approaches that don't have a "the adventure" or "the plot" established in advance?



I'm unfamiliar with any system that's completely player driven, so I can't comment on those. 

Hexcrawls and other random adventures have little to no DM input, except as judge, and can even be played without a DM. Published adventures also require little to no DM input, as the author's hat has been worn by another.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 16, 2020)

pemerton said:


> How does this fit RPG systems and approaches that don't have a "the adventure" or "the plot" established in advance?




The GM is still the primary pilot and navigator.  Scene framing and consequence assignment are massive powers. You're running an 1930's film noir but want to include Flash Gordon?  The GM can get there trivially.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> How does this fit RPG systems and approaches that don't have a "the adventure" or "the plot" established in advance?




One could consider it to mean "the adventure" or "the plot" as agreed around the table. Even in a purely character-focused game, things will at a given time be moving in a direction, and being the one player fighting this is arguably uncool.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> The idea that a player is just a ‘passive consumer’ because he doesn’t want to run games is ridiculous. A player who ‘turns his brain off’ at the table is still contributing to the game.
> 
> As for who is running those 5ed games: new DMs, just as there’s new players. With every new batch of gamers introduced to the hobby, there’ll be a certain number who enjoy DMing - it’s just that they’re a minority.




Nope, not ridiculous.  I'm utterly sick and tired of players who figure that simply turning up every week and throwing a handful of dice is actually contributing to the game.  Look, if all you (the general you, not you specifically) want to do is throw some dice, I have a whole shelf full of board games that we can break out, have a great time at and it doesn't entail me doing any extra work outside of the table.  Fantastic.  Love to do that.

But, no, as DM, I'm not here to entertain you.  Pitch in an do your part and contribute or GTFO.  These passive players who figure that throwing a die roll every few minutes is "contributing" to the game are some of the most energy sucking vampires at the table.  Give me power gamers, munchkins and rules lawyers over these wastes of space any day of the week.  At least those others are actually engaged in the game.

You can tell those who never DM at character generation.  Those who DM who get to play almost always make characters with an eye towards how this will play out in the group, complete with connections to the campaign and probably a few solid hooks for the DM to latch onto.  These passive players come to the table with cipher, man with no name characters, whose parents are long dead and have zero connection to the game.  Dance for us Mr. DM, we are here to be entertained! they cry.  

I'm just utterly sick and tired of players like that.  Either pitch in and do your part of get lost.  You don't deserve to be in the hobby.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

For my part I have always felt the DM IS the most important person at the table, even when I'm a player. The DM does most, and sometimes all, the prep work, wears the most hats and for better or worse is the weaver of the main storyline (if there is one) and its subsidiaries as well as those central to the PCs.

We are all entertaining each other, but the DM, like it or not, bears much of the responsibility of the game.

*It is far easier to play than DM.*


----------



## macd21 (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> How does this fit RPG systems and approaches that don't have a "the adventure" or "the plot" established in advance?




The DM is even more important in those cases, as he has to be able to adapt on the fly. It requires a greater familiarity with the rules and setting than even the usual high standards expected of a DM, and an ability to apply that knowledge quickly and well.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Nope, not ridiculous.  I'm utterly sick and tired of players who figure that simply turning up every week and throwing a handful of dice is actually contributing to the game.  Look, if all you (the general you, not you specifically) want to do is throw some dice, I have a whole shelf full of board games that we can break out, have a great time at and it doesn't entail me doing any extra work outside of the table.  Fantastic.  Love to do that.
> 
> But, no, as DM, I'm not here to entertain you.  Pitch in an do your part and contribute or GTFO.  These passive players who figure that throwing a die roll every few minutes is "contributing" to the game are some of the most energy sucking vampires at the table.  Give me power gamers, munchkins and rules lawyers over these wastes of space any day of the week.  At least those others are actually engaged in the game.
> 
> ...




Y’know, when you explain it like that... still ridiculous.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I would argue that the DM is the single most important participant only because there would be no game without them.




If the game doesn't happen, the other people, individually or as a group, will go find something else to do.  There's a ton of other things for folks to do these days.  Heck, they could also just find or play another game! This somewhat puts a hole in the idea of "no game" without the GM.

There won't be _the particular GM's game_ if the GM isn't there.  But there will be something else.  There will be no unfilled void in anyone's life.  

Go to the library (or, maybe your own bookshelf), and pull any one book off the shelf.  The author is important because without them, that book would not exist?  Now, look at all the other books in the library.  There are tend of thousands of them!  If the author/GM is only as important as the book/story they told... how important is it, really?


----------



## macd21 (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> If the game doesn't happen, the other people, individually or as a group, will go find something else to do.  There's a ton of other things for folks to do these days.  Heck, they could also just find or play another game! This somewhat puts a hole in the idea of "no game" without the GM.
> 
> There won't be _the particular GM's game_ if the GM isn't there.  But there will be something else.  There will be no unfilled void in anyone's life.
> 
> Go to the library (or, maybe your own bookshelf), and pull any one book off the shelf.  The author is important because without them, that book would not exist?  Now, look at all the other books in the library.  There are tend of thousands of them!  If the author/GM is only as important as the book/story they told... how important is it, really?




The question isn’t ‘how important is the DM in the greater scheme of things?’ It’s whether the DM is the most important player at the table, in the context of an RPG game. Yes, the author is important, because without him the book wouldn’t exist. The existence of other books doesn’t change that.

EDIT: it’s not comparing the DM to every other entertainment activity available, it’s comparing the DM to the other players at the table.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Nope, not ridiculous.  I'm utterly sick and tired of players who figure that simply turning up every week and throwing a handful of dice is actually contributing to the game.  Look, if all you (the general you, not you specifically) want to do is throw some dice, I have a whole shelf full of board games that we can break out, have a great time at and it doesn't entail me doing any extra work outside of the table.  Fantastic.  Love to do that.
> 
> But, no, as DM, I'm not here to entertain you.  Pitch in an do your part and contribute or GTFO.  These passive players who figure that throwing a die roll every few minutes is "contributing" to the game are some of the most energy sucking vampires at the table.  Give me power gamers, munchkins and rules lawyers over these wastes of space any day of the week.  At least those others are actually engaged in the game.
> 
> ...



Whereas I have no problem with most players like that. Sure, if you had a table of nothing but passive players it might be a problem. I've never actually seen that happen, but it's probably happened to someone, somewhere.

I've had many passive players over the years and I've rarely found any of them to suck the energy away. They don't tend to drive the game much, if at all, but they're happy to participate, cheer on the party, and follow along with whatever cockamamie scheme the more active players have devised. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, to some extent you need that. Too many strong egos at the table can grind the game to a halt while they debate their next course of action (sometimes for hours).

I can only think of one time when a passive player actually caused a problem at the table, and it was because that player wasn't so much interested in playing as hooking up with another player. That, I'll admit, can be an issue: when you're at the table for reasons other than to have fun gaming.

Overall, however, I have nothing against passive players. IMO, it takes all kinds of different personality types and gaming styles to make up the ideal group.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> If the game doesn't happen, the other people, individually or as a group, will go find something else to do.  There's a ton of other things for folks to do these days.  Heck, they could also just find or play another game! This somewhat puts a hole in the idea of "no game" without the GM.
> 
> There won't be _the particular GM's game_ if the GM isn't there.  But there will be something else.  There will be no unfilled void in anyone's life.
> 
> Go to the library (or, maybe your own bookshelf), and pull any one book off the shelf.  The author is important because without them, that book would not exist?  Now, look at all the other books in the library.  There are tend of thousands of them!  If the author/GM is only as important as the book/story they told... how important is it, really?




Important enough I seek them out to spend time with their works.

Does time continue to tick if something doesn't happen? Yes.  Does that make my choice of what to do with my time less valuable? No.  It makes it more valuable.  Opportunity cost is a thing.  If I seek out a game to play in and the game doesn't happen (especially with little notice whereby I am afforded no chance to reschedule), am I disappointed?  I better be or I've done myself a disservice scheduling to be in the game.

Which participant is most responsible for that activity moving forward? The DM.  Which participant is most responsible for me agreeing to play that particular game out of all the games available?  The DM.  Which participant has the greatest chance of driving me away from that game?  The DM.  Which participant is most important to that activiy?  The DM.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 17, 2020)

aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.
> 
> I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.
> 
> Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.




The GM is the most important single person at the table.
Everyone should play to have fun and so that the others have fun too.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 17, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So we have a group of 5 and the DM leaves.... now we have a group of 4 with a new DM.




IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

S'mon said:


> IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
> And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.




Dunno how common it is. 

I've almost never, even from day 1 at the tender age of about 10, played in a group with only one DM.  It's totally outside my realm of experience.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> The DM is even more important in those cases, as he has to be able to adapt on the fly. It requires a greater familiarity with the rules and setting than even the usual high standards expected of a DM, and an ability to apply that knowledge quickly and well.



The players also have to adapt on the fly, picking up on whatever material the GM is offering them. They may also need to know the rules so they know _how_ they can meaningfully react. As far as the setting is concerned, the players may be helping with that as much as the GM.

I don't think I'm as strong down the @FrogReaver, @hawkeyefan path as those two - the GM does have a distinctive and in some ways demanding role - but I agree with them that there's no need to exaggerate it, or to build into a whole lot of stuff that is not inherent to it.



S'mon said:


> a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.





Nagol said:


> Which participant is most responsible for that activity moving forward? The DM.  Which participant is most responsible for me agreeing to play that particular game out of all the games available?  The DM.  Which participant has the greatest chance of driving me away from that game?  The DM.  Which participant is most important to that activiy?  The DM.



I think this is _why_ I don't quite go all the way with FrogReaver and hawkeyefan. The structure of (traditional) RPGing is such that one person plays a special/distindtive role in coordinating the shared fiction and the group's interaction with it, and it's a role that often benefits from some advance prep. So once a groiup has allocated this role to a particular person, that person takes on a key function that is not trivially displaced.

I don't think this makes the GM the most important person _at the table_, though - it's more of a precondition aspect than a run-time aspect.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 17, 2020)

Umbran said:


> If the game doesn't happen, the other people, individually or as a group, will go find something else to do.  There's a ton of other things for folks to do these days.  Heck, they could also just find or play another game! This somewhat puts a hole in the idea of "no game" without the GM.




This thread isn't about how important the GM is in the grand scheme of the greater cosmos.  It doesn't matter if the absence of the GM means the players will find something else to hold their interest.  Maybe they'll go to a movie, finally take the time to learn ballroom dancing, or even start another game with a different GM.  The point is _that_ particular game does not happen in the absence of the GM. We can often continue to play the game in the absence of one or two players, but we cannot continue the game in the absence of the GM.

This doesn't mean the players are unimportant; after all, there's no game without the players.  And I've had to delay games from time-to-time because we ended the last session on a cliffhanger and the player whose character was pivotal to the resolution could not make it.  Nor does it mean the DM should rule with an iron fist not taking into account the desires of the players or allowing them input.  I may be running the game and I may have even created the setting but it's not my game alone.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The players also have to adapt on the fly, picking up on whatever material the GM is offering them. They may also need to know the rules so they know _how_ they can meaningfully react.




The player’s reactions are a lot less complex than that of the GM. The player only needs to account for their own character, the GM deals with everything other than the PCs. The player only needs to know enough rules to play their own character, the GM needs to have a good grounding in everything.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2020)

macd21 said:


> The player’s reactions are a lot less complex than that of the GM. The player only needs to account for their own character, the GM deals with everything other than the PCs. The player only needs to know enough rules to play their own character, the GM needs to have a good grounding in everything.



If the system is (say) Apocalypse World it's the players more than the GM who need to know the intricacies of their "playbooks". The GM has to have a handle on the fiction. But so does the player or his/her PC will be hosed!

I'm not sure what sort of system or methods you have in mind - maybe some sort of intricate sandbox? I'm thinking of a more "indie" sort of approach than that.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Nope, not ridiculous.  I'm utterly sick and tired of players who figure that simply turning up every week and throwing a handful of dice is actually contributing to the game.  Look, if all you (the general you, not you specifically) want to do is throw some dice, I have a whole shelf full of board games that we can break out, have a great time at and it doesn't entail me doing any extra work outside of the table.  Fantastic.  Love to do that.
> 
> But, no, as DM, I'm not here to entertain you.  Pitch in an do your part and contribute or GTFO.  These passive players who figure that throwing a die roll every few minutes is "contributing" to the game are some of the most energy sucking vampires at the table.  Give me power gamers, munchkins and rules lawyers over these wastes of space any day of the week.  At least those others are actually engaged in the game.
> 
> ...



Depends. Now we're getting into the issue of player motivations. Some people play d&d exactly for the reason that they can practically turn their brain off and just relax or they're only interested in one part like combat or such. There's nothing inherently wrong with any reason why somebody might want to play the game but it's important to know what these motivations are to make sure that everybody's overlaps a little bit an individual gaming environment. Most tables have a range of player motivations to consider and fluctuate gameplay 2 cover as many of them as possible. Sometimes they can put too much to nobody's fault but it happened. What's important is knowing how to recognize that and address it.
Most of the games that I run call for very deep player /character engagement and development. I also run a bi-weekly beer and pretzel game for the players who just want to show up roll dice and blow off steam.
Same system two entirely different games.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think this is _why_ I don't quite go all the way with FrogReaver and hawkeyefan. The structure of (traditional) RPGing is such that one person plays a special/distindtive role in coordinating the shared fiction and the group's interaction with it, and it's a role that often benefits from some advance prep. So once a groiup has allocated this role to a particular person, that person takes on a key function that is not trivially displaced.
> 
> I don't think this makes the GM the most important person _at the table_, though - it's more of a precondition aspect than a run-time aspect.




My comments in this thread aren't aimed so much at diminishing the importance of the GM to a game so much as pointing out that it's not significantly harder to GM. The role is more central to the game, so in that sense it is important....but a game can't happen without players, either. 

I've more been commenting on the difficulty of the role. I think there's a common perception that DMing or GMing is significantly harder than playing, and I don't think that must always be the case. I don't think anything the GM is required to do is inherently more difficult than what players have to do....as you point out, they also need to be able to adapt on the fly....it's just that there tends to be more of it.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> The role is more central to the game, so in that sense it is important....but a game can't happen without players, either.




No one is arguing that the game cannot happen with out players.
The question is, _Is the DM the most important at the table_

Let us take a RPG table of 5
DM, Player A, Player B, Player C, Player D

Using Basic Maths
If you lose 1 or 2 or 3 players, the game can still continue, but the game does not continue if you lose the DM. Thus the DM > x players, where (x+1) players are the number of players at a table.



> My comments in this thread aren't aimed so much at diminishing the importance of the GM to a game so much as pointing out that it's not significantly harder to GM.




That is subjective, perhaps even game dependent and does not take into account all the various types of players (casual, passive or otherwise). Furthermore, more often than not, the GM is the one usually rated on the success of the session not the player. It is true your statement speaks nothing about GMing well, only GMing - but this as well as learning enough of the rules as well as in most cases prep work required leads the perception that GM is significantly harder. I'd say the learning curve for being a GM is much more than that of a player.

EDIT: Are there exceptions to the rule, friendlier-GMing games, sure, but I'm not convinced it is helpful or meaningful referring to those games in this conversation.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2020)

S'mon said:


> IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
> And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.




IME whether the GM leaving breaks the group depends a lot on the game and how much of a load the game places on the DM. A D&D group almost alway breaks, a WoD group normally breaks - and a Fate, Apocalypse World, or similar group normally has three other people lining up to GM.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> No one is arguing that the game cannot happen with out players.
> The question is, _Is the DM the most important at the table_
> 
> Let us take a RPG table of 5
> ...




But what does "important at the table" mean? Are we talking "important to this specific instance of game" or "important to this specific gaming group"? What does "table" equal? 

In my weekly game, a few weeks ago the GM didn't show up. We didn't play Star Trek that night....instead we played a one shot of Mothership. 

So, for our table....if by table we mean gaming group.....the answer was clearly "No, because we have other games and GMs."

Ultimately, the answer to this question is just as subjective as to the one about difficulty.



Sadras said:


> That is subjective, perhaps even game dependent and does not take into account all the various types of players (casual, passive or otherwise). Furthermore, more often than not, the GM is the one usually rated on the success of the session not the player. It is true your statement speaks nothing about GMing well, only GMing - but this as well as learning enough of the rules as well as in most cases prep work required leads the perception that GM is significantly harder. I'd say the learning curve for being a GM is much more than that of a player.
> 
> EDIT: Are there exceptions to the rule, friendlier-GMing games, sure, but I'm not convinced it is helpful or meaningful referring to those games in this conversation.




Yes, this is subjective for sure. Plenty of people think GMing is super hard. That's fine. I don't think that it must be so, and I hope that anyone who's considering trying it out and sees a discussion like this will see more than one opinion on the matter. 

I do think that there are techniques and practices that are perhaps present in other games that can help lessen the burden on a DM in D&D, or a GM in any other game. Different things work for different people, so I think including those techniques can be quite helpful. 

For instance, in my recently resumed 5E campaign, we've adopted the initiative method used in Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. Basically, you alternate turns in combat for each side, deciding who specifcally goes on any turn until all have acted. This is a little easier to track, but also adds all kinds of tactical decisions for the players (and with the DM for the enemies) that we find promote teamwork in a way that linear initiative doesn't quite do.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 17, 2020)

S'mon said:


> IME this is pretty rare. More commonly there is no group anymore.
> And a GM who cancels at short notice wrecks everyone's day. A player can usually cancel with minimal disruption, only if several cancel at once is it game-wrecking.




Of the five people I game with none of them could run a game, or would want to.  Four are extremely casual and the power gamer would make a god awful mess of it if he tried.  My long term 5 year game was at another guy's house over an hour away.  I kept all my stuff in his closet.  For years, because it was too much hassle shuffling it back and forth every week.  But he would cancel all the time, usually day of, and ruin the game for the rest of us.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> For instance, in my recently resumed 5E campaign, we've adopted the initiative method used in Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. Basically, you alternate turns in combat for each side, deciding who specifcally goes on any turn until all have acted. This is a little easier to track, but also adds all kinds of tactical decisions for the players (and with the DM for the enemies) that we find promote teamwork in a way that linear initiative doesn't quite do.




That's what I want, tactical aspect to initiative. I really hate the default system.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Nebulous said:


> That's what I want, tactical aspect to initiative. I really hate the default system.




We've found this new way of doing it to be a bit simpler (not drastically so) but definitely more meaningful. It also involves each player on every turn as they have to decide which character will go when it's the PCs' turn to go. It allows them to use some teamwork in the form of spells and other abilities that can be used earlier in a round that will benefit the actions taken later in the round. 

So far, it's been mostly beneficial in that it engages them more, folks are less likely to be distracted when they have to discuss and decide exactly who will go. 

The only thing that's a little sticky is duration of spells and the like. If one character goes first in one round and casts a spell that lasts till the end of his next turn, going last in the next round extends that spell duration. So this may be a concern for some, but we actually find it kind of interesting.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

The example of one DM and four players misses the point IMO. Setting aside solo play for the moment, the basic, simplest unit of 'play' for almost any RPG is GM/player - you need one of each. Sure, you can add more players but that doesn't change the dualistic nature of the basic unit of exchange. So if the basic unit is 1-1 I think it's tough to make an argument that one in more important than the other. 

Obviously you can get immensely granular about the difference between the two roles, and spend a lot of time talking about the compared difficulty or workload, but neither of those really addresses the issue of importance. It doesn't even matter what system we're talking about, since that indexes difficulty, not importance. I would agree that DMing is, in many cases, more work that playing, at least when it comes to prep and time spent, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to 'importance'.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Additionally, a player who sits at the table to "turn their brains off" is basically just a waste of space.  They are passive consumers who contribute nothing to the game that you couldn't get from an automated die roller.



Turning my brain off and being a passive consumer are most assuredly *not* the same thing.

I turn my brain off as a player (most of the time, and depending on specific PC I'm running) but that in no way means my contribution is any the less.

It does mean there's times when my PC might do things without my fully thinking them through, which is why I usually make Wisdom the dump stat. 

Never mind I almost invariably am or become the party treasurer in any game I play in.



> Not sure that's true.  I certainly saw a huge uptick people willing to run games in 4e where DMing was so much easier than in earlier editions.  Given the MASSIVE growth of the hobby in the 5e era, the notion that "most" players just don't want to DM can't be true.  Someone is running all those new games.



If 5 people new to the hobby want to play and one of them becomes the DM, that's still only a 20-80% ratio.



> Then again, I'm fortunate in that our group is full of people who run games.    Makes those who just want to play stand out so much worse to be honest because it becomes so blindingly obvious that the "passive consumer" players aren't driving anything and the campaigns inevitably revolve around the active players, all of whom have DMing experience.



We have different experiences.

Some of our most active and involved players are just that: players, who've maybe DMed one or two sessions in their decades-long gaming careers before deciding DMing wasn't for them.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The example of one DM and four players misses the point IMO. Setting aside solo play for the moment, the basic, simplest unit of 'play' for almost any RPG is GM/player - you need one of each. Sure, you can add more players but that doesn't change the dualistic nature of the basic unit of exchange. So if the basic unit is 1-1 I think it's tough to make an argument that one in more important than the other.




And yet the question is _Is the DM the most important person at the table _not _Is the DM more important than all the players. _Out of those 5 people at the table, who can you not do without? Pick one.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> But what does "important at the table" mean? Are we talking "important to this specific instance of game" or "important to this specific gaming group"? What does "table" equal?
> 
> In my weekly game, a few weeks ago the GM didn't show up. We didn't play Star Trek that night....instead we played a one shot of Mothership.
> 
> ...




I believe @MGibster answers this upthread



			
				MGibster said:
			
		

> This thread isn't about how important the GM is in the grand scheme of the greater cosmos. It doesn't matter if the absence of the GM means the players will find something else to hold their interest. Maybe they'll go to a movie, finally take the time to learn ballroom dancing, or even start another game with a different GM. The point is _that_ particular game does not happen in the absence of the GM. We can often continue to play the game in the absence of one or two players, but we cannot continue the game in the absence of the GM.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> And yet the question is _Is the DM the most important person at the table _not _Is the DM more important than all the players. _Out of those 5 people at the table, who can you not do without? Pick one.



And I said five players is not manifestly different than one player, so, while trying not to appear ill mannered, I'll just throw the question back at you: with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I believe @MGibster answers this upthread




Sure, and that's a valid answer. But it's an answer to a specific interpretation of the question. 

But, let's look at the OP again and see if this is what he had in mind:



aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.
> 
> I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.
> 
> Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.




It seems focused on all the people present having fun, and the social aspect of the game. The cooperative element of a shared group activity. 

When looked at it that way, I don't know if a question of a specific game is what was intended with the OP. 

Conversations move on and evolve, and everyone is going to have their interpretation of what "most important person at the table" even means. So I agree with @MGibster in the point that he's making. But it was a different point than mine.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Depends. Now we're getting into the issue of player motivations. Some people play d&d exactly for the reason that they can practically turn their brain off and just relax or they're only interested in one part like combat or such. There's nothing inherently wrong with any reason why somebody might want to play the game but it's important to know what these motivations are to make sure that everybody's overlaps a little bit an individual gaming environment. Most tables have a range of player motivations to consider and fluctuate gameplay 2 cover as many of them as possible. Sometimes they can put too much to nobody's fault but it happened. What's important is knowing how to recognize that and address it.
> Most of the games that I run call for very deep player /character engagement and development. I also run a bi-weekly beer and pretzel game for the players who just want to show up roll dice and blow off steam.
> Same system two entirely different games.




QFT.

Yeah, I'm probably letting this bug me way more than it should.  It's just something that came up kinda sorta recently in our group and it's been bugging me ever since.

If you (generic you, not YOU you) are contributing to the game, then I'm 100% happy.  I'm just SO sick and tired of the player who shows up week after week, their character is little more than a name on a piece of paper, refuses to do anything proactive, refuses to learn anything about the setting, refuses to engage with anything and insists that the DM must roll up the plot wagon, week after week after week and dance for their entertainment.

Heh.  Maybe that rant is a bit unfair.    It's possible. But, I do feel a LOT better for letting it out so thanks forks for letting me rant.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Feb 17, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Whereas I have no problem with most players like that. Sure, if you had a table of nothing but passive players it might be a problem. I've never actually seen that happen, but it's probably happened to someone, somewhere.
> 
> I've had many passive players over the years and I've rarely found any of them to suck the energy away. They don't tend to drive the game much, if at all, but they're happy to participate, cheer on the party, and follow along with whatever cockamamie scheme the more active players have devised. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, to some extent you need that. Too many strong egos at the table can grind the game to a halt while they debate their next course of action (sometimes for hours).
> 
> ...



you know, your really demontrates just how extremely more vital the dm is than other players.

single player is passive:  generally not a disaster.

dm is passive:  though not a guarantee the whole game may be DOA.  very likely a disaster.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> And I said five players is not manifestly different than one player, so, while trying not to appear ill mannered, I'll just throw the question back at you: with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one.




Not ill-mannered at all   .
To answer your question they are equally important in that scenario, hence my simple equation upthread. 
The DM > than x players, where (x+1) players are the players required for the game at the table.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> And I said five players is not manifestly different than one player, so, while trying not to appear ill mannered, I'll just throw the question back at you: with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one.




The player is most expendible.  Players are easy to acquire.  The pool of potentials is much deeper.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> And I said five players is not manifestly different than one player, so, while trying not to appear ill mannered, I'll just throw the question back at you: with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one.




You have answered the question quite spectacularly. _If_ five players is not manifestly different than one player but you have five players then four of your players are surplus to requirements and hence unimportant.  You are saying that the GM is as important as the five players _combined _in your analogy. Which is a rather more extreme statement than merely saying that the GM is the single most important individual. You have four spare players but a grand total of zero spare GMs.

Me, I think it seriously overrates the importance of the GM to say they are as important as all the plyers combined. And a big part depends which game you are playing.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Not ill-mannered at all   .
> To answer your question they are equally important in that scenario, hence my simple equation upthread.
> The DM > than x players, where (x+1) players are the players required for the game at the table.



Hmm, while I don't disagree strenuously with your math, I think that my example is perhaps the one that bears most directly on the OP. Boiled down to bare essence, we're talking about GM/player where player might, but cannot be assumed to equal more than one. You can subtract from 4 down to one and still have a RPG, but not so one to none.

Nor, to address @Nagrol , does specificity help us here. You certainly can do without a particular player, and I've said something that sounds very much like your post more than once. However, we aren't talking about the specific, but rather the general. In order to have an RPG (other than edge case solo adventures) you need at least two people, one GM and one player and you cannot play without either. How do you define importance when both parties are indispensable?


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Feb 17, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> You have answered the question quite spectacularly. _If_ five players is not manifestly different than one player but you have five players then four of your players are surplus to requirements and hence unimportant.  You are saying that the GM is as important as the five players _combined _in your analogy. Which is a rather more extreme statement than merely saying that the GM is the single most important individual. You have four spare players but a grand total of zero spare GMs.
> 
> Me, I think it seriously overrates the importance of the GM to say they are as important as all the plyers combined. And a big part depends which game you are playing.



a better way to put it is this and i think this is honestly pretty close to the truth.  the dm is as important to have as it is to have the one minimum non dm player and the importance of the dm rises by increments that could be applied to a curve the more players you have along a curve as you approach four non dms.  the importance of the dm continues to rise the more players you have than four but now at a decreasing curve of incremental increase.  a little like a bell curve with a left side as high as the importance of the minimum one non player dm.  the curve is not importance of the dm just to reiterate.  its the curve of how much the importance of the dm increases PER PLAYER.

generally regardless of player quantities the dm is not more important than all players combined.  its always a minimum of being as important as a player (only the case at the minimum one non dm player plot point) and always less important than the group combined.  BUT at certain quantities it is almost as important as all players combined.  and it is certainly always significantly more important than any one single player except at the one non dm player minimum.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> You have answered the question quite spectacularly. _If_ five players is not manifestly different than one player but you have five players then four of your players are surplus to requirements and hence unimportant.  You are saying that the GM is as important as the five players _combined _in your analogy. Which is a rather more extreme statement than merely saying that the GM is the single most important individual. You have four spare players but a grand total of zero spare GMs.
> 
> Me, I think it seriously overrates the importance of the GM to say they are as important as all the plyers combined. And a big part depends which game you are playing.



Yeah, that's not really what I said at all. What I said was that RPG gaming has two indispensable roles - GM and player. There was no math implied beyond that at all, nor an implied value judgement of either role. I was certainly not suggesting that four of five players are somehow dispensable and I think it's vaguely disingenuous to suggest that I was. I think it's pretty meaningless to try and ascribe importance beyond that (1-1) given the vast potential differences in systems and tables that we are trying to describe.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 18, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, that's not really what I said at all. What I said was that RPG gaming has two indispensable roles - GM and player. There was no math implied beyond that at all, nor an implied value judgement of either role. I was certainly not suggesting that four of five players are somehow dispensable and I think it's vaguely disingenuous to suggest that I was. I think it's pretty meaningless to try and ascribe importance beyond that (1-1) given the vast potential differences in systems and tables that we are trying to describe.




What you said was that RPG gaming had two indispensible roles. (Not quite true as Fiasco demonstrates but I'll grant it). But you also said that "five players is not manifestly different than one player" - meaning that there is no need for there to be more than one player in your scale. How important does that make players 2-5? If they are "not manifestly different" then not at all. Now I consider this ridiculous (and I think so do you) - but it is where your logic in the attempt to claim parity leads.

Does this mean that the _role_ of DM is more important than the role of player? No. But you have spares of one and no spares of the other meaning that only one person at the table is critical. @Son of the Serpent tried to give some sort of ratio above.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The example of one DM and four players misses the point IMO. Setting aside solo play for the moment, the basic, simplest unit of 'play' for almost any RPG is GM/player - you need one of each. Sure, you can add more players but that doesn't change the dualistic nature of the basic unit of exchange. So if the basic unit is 1-1 I think it's tough to make an argument that one in more important than the other.
> 
> Obviously you can get immensely granular about the difference between the two roles, and spend a lot of time talking about the compared difficulty or workload, but neither of those really addresses the issue of importance. It doesn't even matter what system we're talking about, since that indexes difficulty, not importance. I would agree that DMing is, in many cases, more work that playing, at least when it comes to prep and time spent, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to 'importance'.



I'm not sure I agree. I've played solo games where I wasn't feeling well and the DM did the lion's share of the talking. If the situation had been reversed, I can't imagine we would have even played. 

Admittedly though, without a player there is no game. However, the player can be fairly passive and you still have a game. I can't imagine how you'd have much of a game if the GM is passive. If the GM isn't feeling well enough to run, we generally just do something other than game.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2020)

Far be it for me to talk any of you out of thinking the GM is more important than the players. You need both, and beyond that I think it's enormously unimportant to try and rate the importance of who's at the table.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 18, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:
			
		

> Conversations move on and evolve, and everyone is going to have their interpretation of what "most important person at the table" even means.




I think this is the heart of it which makes it another pointless thread, since their are so many wildly differing interpretations.

Where some decided to analyse the words _most,_ _important & table _and even analysed inserted words such as _game/s_ & _roles, _some of us defined the question by the word_ person. _Now ofcourse the OP elaborates more on the question of the thread, but IMO confuses the issue further. While he speaks about everyone having a good time, he does drill down to *A player* derailing the plot.

Anyways I don't disagree with @Fenris-77's position of indespensible roles but that is not the position I was debating from.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 18, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I think this is the heart of it which makes it another pointless thread, since their are so many wildly differing interpretations.
> 
> Where some decided to analyse the words _most,_ _important & table _and even analysed inserted words such as _game/s_ & _roles, _some of us defined the question by the word_ person. _Now ofcourse the OP elaborates more on the question of the thread, but IMO confuses the issue further. While he speaks about everyone having a good time, he does drill down to *A player* derailing the plot.
> 
> Anyways I don't disagree with @Fenris-77's position of indespensible roles but that is not the position I was debating from.




Pointless? It’s a discussion. We don’t all need to agree, and a definitive answer isn’t needed for the discussion to have value.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 18, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Conversations move on and evolve, and everyone is going to have their interpretation of what "most important person at the table" even means. So I agree with @MGibster in the point that he's making. But it was a different point than mine.




I think we can all agree that the best interpretation of this thread is that MGibster is awesome and the most important person in this thread.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 18, 2020)

I don't even think we needed a thread for that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2020)

So I was DM for 3 players over the weekend.  

There was a spurt where the players were doing a few things the day before they were going to go out on an adventure.  One PC is sleeping, 2 of the PC's prank each other a bit.  A guard gets involved.  One player decides to prank the guard and for the next 30 minutes proceeds to be the only player interacting in the game trying to annoy the guards.  I attempted everything I could think of to move the scene forward to the next morning but he wasn't having any of it.  

Finally one of the other players has their PC go get his and lead him away from the guards and we cut to the next morning.  That player was more important to the game than me.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So I was DM for 3 players over the weekend.
> 
> There was a spurt where the players were doing a few things the day before they were going to go out on an adventure.  One PC is sleeping, 2 of the PC's prank each other a bit.  A guard gets involved.  One player decides to prank the guard and for the next 30 minutes proceeds to be the only player interacting in the game trying to annoy the guards.  I attempted everything I could think of to move the scene forward to the next morning but he wasn't having any of it.
> 
> Finally one of the other players has their PC go get his and lead him away from the guards and we cut to the next morning.  That player was more important to the game than me.




No, they weren’t. They helped push forward to the next scene, but without you there wouldn’t have been any scenes.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So I was DM for 3 players over the weekend.
> 
> There was a spurt where the players were doing a few things the day before they were going to go out on an adventure.  One PC is sleeping, 2 of the PC's prank each other a bit.  A guard gets involved.  One player decides to prank the guard and for the next 30 minutes proceeds to be the only player interacting in the game trying to annoy the guards.  I attempted everything I could think of to move the scene forward to the next morning but he wasn't having any of it.
> 
> Finally one of the other players has their PC go get his and lead him away from the guards and we cut to the next morning.  That player was more important to the game than me.



That one seems rather easy IMO. If you want to advance the scene you say something like, "You utterly confound the guards with your pranks, leading them on a wild goose chase for hours. The next day..." Sum up and move to the next scene. The DM has that power. The most a player can say is that they're done with the scene and are ready to move on, but it is the DM that makes that call. They can choose to summarize a scene that a player is engaging with to move it along, or introduce new elements to extend the scene beyond the point where the players would have otherwise ended the scene (the BBEG shows up as the player finishes pranking the guards, for example).


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> That one seems rather easy IMO. If you want to advance the scene you say something like, "You utterly confound the guards with your pranks, leading them on a wild goose chase for hours. The next day..." Sum up and move to the next scene. The DM has that power. The most a player can say is that they're done with the scene and are ready to move on, but it is the DM that makes that call. They can choose to summarize a scene that a player is engaging with to move it along, or introduce new elements to extend the scene beyond the point where the players would have otherwise ended the scene (the BBEG shows up as the player finishes pranking the guards, for example).




Additional ways I could have moved the scene forward are appreciated but kind of miss the point.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2020)

macd21 said:


> No, they weren’t. They helped push forward to the next scene, but without you there wouldn’t have been any scenes.




Without that player it would have been a bad game. With that player it was a great game. 

No game is better than a bad game right?


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> No game is better than a bad game right?




I keep seeing people say this, and I keep thinking it's not exactly true. Maybe it depends on just how bad the bad game is?


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> I keep seeing people say this, and I keep thinking it's not exactly true. Maybe it depends on just how bad the bad game is?



For some the simple act of playing the game is the reason why they play the game and others are looking for specific things within the game for fulfillment.
an example would be some people play the game for social interaction so the missing element of additional players other than the DM might be lacking.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> For some the simple act of playing the game is the reason why they play the game and others are looking for specific things within the game for fulfillment.
> an example would be some people play the game for social interaction so the missing element of additional players other than the DM might be lacking.




That seems plausible. I'm in at least two groups (as a player) where it's far more the people at the tables than the games themselves that keep me coming back.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> That seems plausible. I'm in at least two groups (as a player) where it's far more the people at the tables than the games themselves that keep me coming back.



As much as I harp on maintaining a mechanical balance point, pacing, player agency, and game structure they come second by a long shot from the importance of the interpersonal relationships of the players(including GM)
I think it is one of the big factors of why the hobby gotten more popular is that portion.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Additional ways I could have moved the scene forward are appreciated but kind of miss the point.



I also feel as though you've missed my point, which was that you had the authority to advance the scene the entire time, you simply did not exercise it. You may have had good reasons for doing so, but that is quite distinct from lacking the authority. Players don't typically have such authority.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2020)

Late to the thread, and I'm going to switch from examining which 'person' is most important at the table to which 'role'.

So, in games that have roles of GM and player, the distribution of authorities and constraints differs on the game.  In D&D, the GM has broad authority over almost every aspect of the game and few constraints, while the player has limited authority (general, only over their character in build and action declaration) and many constraints. Play is clearly centered around the GM.

In a Powered by the Apocalypse game, say Blades in the Dark, the GM has much more limited authority, now only over position and effect and scene framing (but constrained by player input) and many more constraints on authority.  The players have much more authority and fewer constraints than in D&D.  Everyone, though is under tighter constrained in regards to genre and setting than in D&D.  Depending on the immediate need in the game, the more important role shifts between player and GM.  For instance, when determining the score, the GM has no say, it's all the players (constrained by genre and setting) and the GM must accept the player's input and cannot violate it in scene framing or resolutions.  So, here, the roles have shifted and play is less clearly GM centered than in D&D, as authorities alternate.

 I don't think it's worthwhile to try to determine who the most important role at the table is, because you must have all roles present to have the game.  Further, importance of role can vary greatly by the game, and even by the specific moment in the game.

I think a lot of thought is tied up into what we do in these roles, that are our choices, or are pushed by the game structure, without considering an outside view.  It's easy to think that, since you do the prep and make the calls and play D&D that you can conflate you, the person, with the role of GM.  The role of GM is pointless without the players -- it's neither more or less important in structure.  In the social space, though, the level of work necessary to GM in the traditional D&D style (which you don't really have to do, it's more the traditions and assumptions built up around the game rather than an actual requirement to play) means that there are fewer people willing to do it, and fewer still who do it well, which leads to the assumption that the GM is the most important person.  In reality, the GM is just more scarce, not more important.  They are more valuable due to their scarcity rather than anything inherent to the role.  And, this is borne out by the desire to protect the scarcity of the GM through gatekeeping -- you MUST do these things to be a GM and it's HARD to do well, so therefore there are FEWER people capable of being a GM.  But, this is gatekeeping, pure and simple.  You do not have to do the many things listed in this thread as 'needed' to GM, as some have noted to strong pushback.  You can do it a lot simpler, if you change your assumptions and traditions about what a game looks like, even for stalwarts like D&D.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Late to the thread, and I'm going to switch from examining which 'person' is most important at the table to which 'role'.
> 
> So, in games that have roles of GM and player, the distribution of authorities and constraints differs on the game.  In D&D, the GM has broad authority over almost every aspect of the game and few constraints, while the player has limited authority (general, only over their character in build and action declaration) and many constraints. Play is clearly centered around the GM.
> 
> ...



In the strictest sense, "important" was arguably not the best term to use for this topic as it is extremely subjective. Important with respect to what? In the sense that everyone's fun is equally important? In the sense of whose authority or responsibility is greatest? Something else?

I disagree with your conclusion, that believing that GMing is hard, necessarily amounts to gatekeeping. Yes, in theory a new GM could use all sorts of shortcuts to lighten their burden. However, in practice, a new GM is the least likely to actually know about such shortcuts.

If you try to dissuade potential GMs from GMing by saying it is hard, that is gatekeeping. Acknowledging that GMing is challenging in a thread, the majority of whose participants are probably already GMs, is not gatekeeping IMO.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> In the strictest sense, "important" was arguably not the best term to use for this topic as it is extremely subjective. Important with respect to what? In the sense that everyone's fun is equally important? In the sense of whose authority or responsibility is greatest? Something else?
> 
> I disagree with your conclusion, that believing that GMing is hard, necessarily amounts to gatekeeping. Yes, in theory a new GM could use all sorts of shortcuts to lighten their burden. However, in practice, a new GM is the least likely to actually know about such shortcuts.
> 
> If you try to dissuade potential GMs from GMing by saying it is hard, that is gatekeeping. Acknowledging that GMing is challenging in a thread, the majority of whose participants are probably already GMs, is not gatekeeping IMO.




Indeed, I think knitting and birdwatching are hard for differing reasons.  One cannot claim I am gatekeeping those hobbies as I do not pursue them _because they are hard_.

I do acknowledge that DMing is also considered hard and understand why others would not wish to pursue it.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> That one seems rather easy IMO. If you want to advance the scene you say something like, "You utterly confound the guards with your pranks, leading them on a wild goose chase for hours. The next day..." Sum up and move to the next scene. The DM has that power.



And the player has the power to say "Hold on a minute - don't jump ahead on me, I'm not done yet and I want to play it out in detail!"


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 18, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> And the player has the power to say "Hold on a minute - don't jump ahead on me, I'm not done yet and I want to play it out in detail!"



And the GM has the authority to say "Nope, we're done with this scene". Maybe the GM elaborates that they don't want to RP out the PC bargaining with the shopkeeper or whatever. I've made use of this myself when a PC seduces someone. I don't care whether or not the player wants to play out the bedroom scene because that ain't happening.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 18, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> And I said five players is not manifestly different than one player, so, while trying not to appear ill mannered, I'll just throw the question back at you: with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one.



Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.
> 
> View attachment 118523



Solo play actually doesn't make the grade as roleplaying by a lot of measures. I probably agree with that (fun as it might be). You can play an RPG with multiple players and no GM though, for sure. There are a near limitless number of ways you can share authority at the table.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.
> 
> View attachment 118523



I'm unfamiliar with that particular module, but I am inclined to disagree. There was still someone who acted in the role of GM and prepped the adventure. Additionally, those types of solo adventures tend to be very limited in terms of an RPG. For example, if I decide to go off the map or spend several months tunneling through a portion of a dungeon wall, can that module adapt? Because a real GM could.

There are ways to play that are technically GM-less, such as Mythic, although in that case the player really assumes the role of both GM and player, with the dice taking up a greater portion of the role of arbiter.

Also, as @Fenris-77 states, GM-less systems do exist where GMing authority is shared by all the players. In a system with no GM, the GM cannot possibly be more "important" than anyone else. Although I'm not convinced that it says anything pertinent about games that do have a distinct GM.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Solo play actually doesn't make the grade as roleplaying by a lot of measures. I probably agree with that (fun as it might be). You can play an RPG with multiple players and no GM though, for sure. There are a near limitless number of ways you can share authority at the table.



I don't disagree.  Whether or not it makes the grade is kind of irrelevant, since this is a licensed D&D product and D&D is a role-playing game.  There were several of them, I think.  And there was a blurb in the Basic Boxed Set rules that says a Dungeon Master is only necessary if you intend to play in a group:





Of course, I'm not advocating that we get rid of Dungeon Masters and go back to B/X rules.  But the question you asked was "with one player and one GM, which can you not do without? Pick one."  Well, according to at least one D&D Rulebook, the answer is "the Dungeon Master."


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I also feel as though you've missed my point, which was that you had the authority to advance the scene the entire time, you simply did not exercise it.




I somewhat disagree, but assume that you are correct.  So what?  On the gaming night in question - given how the game progressed - the most important thing that happened all night was the player intervening to help move the story forward.  



> You may have had good reasons for doing so, but that is quite distinct from lacking the authority. Players don't typically have such authority.




So I see the issue, you are defining importance as "possessing the most authority.  No one disagrees that the DM has the most authority.  Instead, I counter that importance is based on what is actually done - not what one is  empowered to do but remains undone.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

@CleverNickName 
"Whether or not it makes the grade is kind of irrelevant, since this is a licensed D&D product and D&D is a role-playing game. "

I'm really not sure what you think it proves that it's a licensed D&D product. They had lunchboxes too. It's still not role playing based on several different critical measures. Feel free to disagree with that if you want to, but that would involve taking on the definition, not posting a pic of a solo module and saying 'gotcha'. Feel free to address the Forge definition, the Meilahti School definition, or any other critical definition you like.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> "Whether or not it makes the grade is kind of irrelevant, since this is a licensed D&D product and D&D is a role-playing game. "
> 
> I'm really not sure what you think it proves that it's a licensed D&D product. They had lunchboxes too. It's still not role playing based on several different critical measures. Feel free to disagree with that if you want to, but that would involve taking on the definition, not posting a pic of a solo module and saying 'gotcha'. Feel free to address the Forge definition, the Meilahti School definition, or any other critical definition you like.




Perhaps it's best to avoid the "what is roleplaying" discussion


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Perhaps it's best to avoid the "what is roleplaying" discussion



Why? It's pretty central to the point of the thread in this case and a very reasonable example to bring up on CNN's part. Does solo count is an important question, because if it does count then we need to account for it in any review of authority and importance at the table.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Feel free to disagree with that if you want to, but that would involve taking on the definition, not posting a pic of a solo module and saying 'gotcha'. Feel free to address the Forge definition, the Meilahti School definition, or any other critical definition you like.



I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question.  It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Why? It's pretty central to the point of the thread in this case and a very reasonable example to bring up on CNN's part. Does solo count is an important question, because if it does count then we need to account for it in any review of authority and importance at the table.




Or you could drop the whole pretext for opening up that can of worms and instead focus on the actual point of the thread - 

Whether the DM is the most important person in a game that uses a DM.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question.  It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.




You cannot play the D&D game any of us visualize without a DM.  You can play a game very similar to what we all would call D&D without a DM - but I don't think any of us would call those the same thing.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question.  It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.



Not unpopular at all, I think it's a great question. Personally, I don't think it's roleplaying and I personally disagree with you, but I set out the critical definition thing because that's kind of where people look for answers to that question that aren't personal opinion. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make it not an interesting question, to which other people may have interesting answers.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> And the GM has the authority to say "Nope, we're done with this scene". Maybe the GM elaborates that they don't want to RP out the PC bargaining with the shopkeeper or whatever.




It's easy to Monday morning quarterback...



> I've made use of this myself when a PC seduces someone. I don't care whether or not the player wants to play out the bedroom scene because that ain't happening.




Just because it's justifiable to use a technique to bypass a bedroom scene - which is likely a fairly common use and justification - that doesn't mean any use of that technique is justifiable for any reason whatsoever.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I somewhat disagree, but assume that you are correct.  So what?  On the gaming night in question - given how the game progressed - the most important thing that happened all night was the player intervening to help move the story forward.
> 
> So I see the issue, you are defining importance as "possessing the most authority.  No one disagrees that the DM has the most authority.  Instead, I counter that importance is based on what is actually done - not what one is  empowered to do but remains undone.




Actually, I've mostly avoided using the term "important" in this thread because it's such a subjective term. Even in this case. You're saying that this player was the most important because he progressed the story. Fair enough, I accept that. Your initial post actually made it sound like the player was derailing the game, hogging the spotlight for a half hour to play pranks, and that you were somehow powerless to stop them.



FrogReaver said:


> It's easy to Monday morning quarterback...
> 
> Just because it's justifiable to use a technique to bypass a bedroom scene - which is likely a fairly common use and justification - that doesn't mean any use of that technique is justifiable for any reason whatsoever.



Huh? Monday morning quarterbacking? @Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking.

It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."

Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to. Unless the GM is willing to allow a retcon, of course.

In any case, this isn't about what is and isn't justifiable. We could undoubtedly both come up with about a million examples illustrating both good and bad GMing using this technique.

My point was that it is well within the GM's authority to do so in a traditional RPG like D&D.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> @Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless.



And, absent any other reason to be uncomfortable with the scene in question, were I the player I'd likely challenge that authority on the spot.

An argument would probably follow.



> It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."



Depends.

What if the player has a deeper reason for haggling with the merchants (which the GM may or may not even know about!)?  Maybe the player is thinking along lines of the PC establishing contacts for later reference, or casing shops for later thefts, or trying to establish her character as being a diehard cheapskate in order to influence later negotiations over treasury division.  It might be ages until any of this comes to light.

Players can have secrets too. 



> Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to.



Exactly.  This is one valid way of cutting a scene short, if a bit heavy-handed and probably not repeatable very often.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 19, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.




Technically you can also do without the players. Just a DMPC or two. I don't recommend it as roleplaying - although it is a way of writing fiction...


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 19, 2020)

Neonchameleon said:


> Technically you can also do without the players. Just a DMPC or two. I don't recommend it as roleplaying - although it is a way of writing fiction...



I suppose you could just play Baulder's Gate, too...


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Actually, I've mostly avoided using the term "important" in this thread because it's such a subjective term. Even in this case. You're saying that this player was the most important because he progressed the story. Fair enough, I accept that. Your initial post actually made it sound like the player was derailing the game, hogging the spotlight for a half hour to play pranks, and that you were somehow powerless to stop them.




There was one player doing that.  And I was powerless to stop him - at least within the bounds of our social contract - because if I could have done so I would have. 

That isn't to say there was no possible technique that could have been used to stop him - there probably was and I have some ideas for what to attempt in the future - but in the heat of the moment in the middle of the game that night I exhausted every avenue I could see.  That to me is powerlessness - is it not to you?

More importantly, as I noted in my initial post - there was another player that was able to progress the game to a point we could move forward. 



> Huh? Monday morning quarterbacking? @Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking.




You weren't in that game, in the heat of the moment and you are telling someone they should have done X in that game, in the heat of the moment.  That's precisely what Monday morning quarterbacking is.



> It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."




I would say more precisely it depends on the game, the group, their social contract, their expectations, what they find fun etc.



> Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to. Unless the GM is willing to allow a retcon, of course.




Sure but they already had their destination and the BBEG was nowhere in sight...



> In any case, this isn't about what is and isn't justifiable. We could undoubtedly both come up with about a million examples illustrating both good and bad GMing using this technique.




It definitely is about justifiability.  If you aren't justified in using the technique in a given situation - then the technique is off the table.



> My point was that it is well within the GM's authority to do so in a traditional RPG like D&D.




And what we are saying is that isn't necessarily the case...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 19, 2020)

A player who has a secret and doesn't inform the DM impacts the game zero. A DM who keeps secrets can still have those secrets impact the game a lot.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Sacrosanct said:


> A player who has a secret and doesn't inform the DM impacts the game zero. A DM who keeps secrets can still have those secrets impact the game a lot.




I once built a PC to attempt to run a Ponzi Scheme.  Limited combat ability but charisma and persuasion and deception and charm magic all out of this world.  I did not reveal to the DM that direct plan (at least for quite a while).  It was meant to occur organically through play.

That PC had a profound impact on the game IMO.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.



Not well.  There is no good substitute for a real person.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Not well.  There is no good substitute for a real person.




Yep.

Though the last part of that statement really makes me want to ask - what is a non-real person?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Or you could drop the whole pretext for opening up that can of worms and instead focus on the actual point of the thread -




I opened a can of worms once.  They just sat there.  It really wasn't the chaos that is advertised.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Yep.
> 
> Though the last part of that statement really makes me want to ask - what is a non-real person?



Shush you!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> In the strictest sense, "important" was arguably not the best term to use for this topic as it is extremely subjective. Important with respect to what? In the sense that everyone's fun is equally important? In the sense of whose authority or responsibility is greatest? Something else?
> 
> I disagree with your conclusion, that believing that GMing is hard, necessarily amounts to gatekeeping. Yes, in theory a new GM could use all sorts of shortcuts to lighten their burden. However, in practice, a new GM is the least likely to actually know about such shortcuts.
> 
> If you try to dissuade potential GMs from GMing by saying it is hard, that is gatekeeping. Acknowledging that GMing is challenging in a thread, the majority of whose participants are probably already GMs, is not gatekeeping IMO.



Why is a new GM less likely to know about practices that can reduce the burden of GMing?  Because they are not shared, or demonstrated, but other GMs.  That's part of gatekeeping -- the hoarding of knowledge.

GMing is not hard, unless you conflate your preferences for what's actually required.  Too many of us do this, and those preferences become another lock on the gate.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 19, 2020)

The DM is the MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER of the game so that the PLAYERS can be the MOST IMPORTANT people at the game.

That is kinda deep and easy to get wrong but it's as real a answer as you can get.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> And, absent any other reason to be uncomfortable with the scene in question, were I the player I'd likely challenge that authority on the spot.
> 
> An argument would probably follow.
> 
> ...



You can argue with the GM about anything. If I say no paladins allowed in my campaign, you can argue the point. Doesn't mean the GM lacks the authority to do so. 

Similarly, if my boss at work makes a decision I can argue against it. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the authority to make that decision. Even irrespective of whether that decision was good or bad.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why is a new GM less likely to know about practices that can reduce the burden of GMing?  Because they are not shared, or demonstrated, but other GMs.  That's part of gatekeeping -- the hoarding of knowledge.




I was able to find a lot of new-GM advice about the time I started working on the first campaign I started. I'd GMed before, but I figured the system I was picking up might be different. The advice was mostly good, and remarkably generous in ways.



Ovinomancer said:


> GMing is not hard, unless you conflate your preferences for what's actually required.  Too many of us do this, and those preferences become another lock on the gate.




It's not difficult necessarily, but it's more complex than playing (in D&D and other more-traditional RPGs, anyway) especially if you're working up your own material (and if you're doing that, your preferences are closer to the center of the game, I'd argue). I think many GMs try to run the games they'd most like to play in--I know I do--which also seems to make the GM's preferences closer to the game. Not preferences about how complicated GMing is, just preferences about the game (which may not be entirely the preferences you're talking about).


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> The DM is the MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER of the game so that the PLAYERS can be the MOST IMPORTANT people at the game.




I might phrase this thought differently: The DM is the most important player at the table so the PCs can be the most important people in the game.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> There was one player doing that.  And I was powerless to stop him - at least within the bounds of our social contract - because if I could have done so I would have.
> 
> That isn't to say there was no possible technique that could have been used to stop him - there probably was and I have some ideas for what to attempt in the future - but in the heat of the moment in the middle of the game that night I exhausted every avenue I could see.  That to me is powerlessness - is it not to you?
> 
> More importantly, as I noted in my initial post - there was another player that was able to progress the game to a point we could move forward.




I think the important thing here is that it was due to a social contract. You agreed to surrender some portion of your authority as part of that contract. Which is fine, I'm sure you have good reasons for doing so. But it was due to a social contract that you opted into that limited your authority, rather than you lacking that authority.



> You weren't in that game, in the heat of the moment and you are telling someone they should have done X in that game, in the heat of the moment.  That's precisely what Monday morning quarterbacking is.




I'm confused. The quoted text you responded to was Lanefan and myself talking about a hypothetical, not something that really happened. You can't Monday morning quarterback a hypothetical.

Or do you mean I was MMQing you, because that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying what you should have done. I was saying what you had the authority to do (which, as you've clarified, you couldn't actually have done, but only as a result of a social contract).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why is a new GM less likely to know about practices that can reduce the burden of GMing?  Because they are not shared, or demonstrated, but other GMs.  That's part of gatekeeping -- the hoarding of knowledge.
> 
> GMing is not hard, unless you conflate your preferences for what's actually required.  Too many of us do this, and those preferences become another lock on the gate.



Or, you know, because like me they had no one to show them how and had to figure it out on their own? It's great if you have a experienced mentor to teach you, but that's hardly a given.

ENWorld is a great example of GMs sharing their knowledge freely. But not one that a new GM is necessarily going to know about. It's certainly better nowadays thanks to the internet, but I don't think it's a given that a newbie will know the right place to look. And then there is also sorting good advice from bad...


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I think the important thing here is that it was due to a social contract. You agreed to surrender some portion of your authority as part of that contract. Which is fine, I'm sure you have good reasons for doing so. But it was due to a social contract that you opted into that limited your authority, rather than you lacking that authority.




If I've surrendered authority then I no longer have it - aka lacking that authority.



> Or do you mean I was MMQing you, because that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying what you should have done. I was saying what you had the authority to do (which, as you've clarified, you couldn't actually have done, but only as a result of a social contract).




I'll take your word for it.

I'm just glad we are on the same page - that DM authority can easily be more limited than typically envisioned in these discussions.

Which going back to my original point - in my game a player was able to accomplish moving the game forward when I as the DM could not.  So now that it sounds like you agree with this assessment - how does this not make the case that a player can at least for some sessions be more important than a DM?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Which going back to my original point - in my game a player was able to accomplish moving the game forward when I as the DM could not.  So now that it sounds like you agree with this assessment - how does this not make the case that a player can at least for some sessions be more important than a DM?



The DM is still first among equals.  Even if the player occasionally does more in session than the DM, he still doesn't take over the first among equals spot.  The DM still has far more responsibility, puts in far more work prepping for the game, plays far more roles, etc., than the players do.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> If I've surrendered authority then I no longer have it - aka lacking that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No. Again, without the DM, there is no session for the player to be important in. And the authority ultimately always lies with the DM. You may have ‘surrendered’ your authority, but you can always take it back - ultimately the decision lies with you. If an individual player disagrees with that, he can leave, if you leave, the game doesn’t happen.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> If I've surrendered authority then I no longer have it - aka lacking that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I talk about GMs having greater authority than players, I am talking about a typical GM in a typical game, rather than FrogReaver the GM in FrogReaver's game. We can make generalized statements about GMs as a whole. Those statements may or may not apply to a particular GM, such as yourself.

You could play 5e with something like Mythic GM Emulator, eliminating the role of GM as being distinct from that of a player. It wouldn't really be pertinent to this discussion though.

Same thing here. You voluntarily entered into a contract that limited your authority as GM. It tells us something about your game, but we can't generalize it into telling us about GMs in general, since that is not typical. The most we can say about this is that a player at your table can have more authority than you (specifically, FrogReaver). A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Like I've said before, I've largely tried to avoid using the term important in this thread because it is very subjective. Important in what sense?

A king is more important than other people in the sense that the king has the greatest governmental authority (yeah, that may not ALWAYS be true but for simplicity's sake let's just assume it is). 

However, many would say that the king exists to serve the people, and derives his power from the people. So in that sense the people are more important.

And, arguably, from certain moral standpoints the king is a person just like any other citizen and therefore his happiness is no more or less important than that of any other citizen. So the king is of equal importance to the citizens.

See what I did there? I just showed that a king can be of greater importance, lesser importance, and equal importance to his citizens. Which I think says a lot more about the subjective nature of the term important than it does about the relationship between kings and their citizens. (Also, no, I am not equating the role of GM to that of a king. I'm just showing how subjective the term important is, that's all.)

My standpoint has been that the GM is equal to the players in the sense that everyone's fun is equally important. However, GMs have both greater authority and responsibilities than a player does.


----------



## Fishreeler (Feb 19, 2020)

If I really make a purchase and make a sorcerer with 10 Cha, at some point I had to put these points in some other skill. Therefore, if my DM casts the Pact Guardian Rod +3 so that my spells act as if I had 16 Cha, I will receive several free points in other ability scores for free.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Or, you know, because like me they had no one to show them how and had to figure it out on their own? It's great if you have a experienced mentor to teach you, but that's hardly a given.



Needing a mentor to show you the difficult ropes is another form of gatekeeping.

And, D&D is bad in it's manuals (usually, some older exceptions) at teaching anything useful about GMing.  Largely, I think, because a lot of material on HOW to GM would make many returning customers upset.  There's already loads of complaints about the 'wasted' space in the 5e DMG that does talk about the basics of GMing.  So, yeah, that's gatekeeping as well.

I huge amount of the problem is that we all think that the way we, personally, prefer games is how games should be, and that's been locked in through a few decades of GM's doing the heavy load lifting.  But, you don't have to.  You can offload a lot of the tracking onto the players.  You can using random generated dungeons, either from the back of the DMG or any number of tools online.  You can pretty quickly pull encounters straight from the MM that will work, especially with other neophyte players, or you can use an online tool like KFC to do work for you.  In game, all you have to do is listen to what your players say and then call for checks when needed.  It's not hard, but it would probably not look like a game you'd prefer.  But, that's okay, you're GMing.  And, maybe that game doesn't need to be like yours.

But, this conception we have that DMing should look like our DMing (and mine doesn't look like the example above) and we know how much work we do so therefore DMing is HARD is really gatekeeping -- it's stepping on games that don't look like ours.

I was guilty of all of these things for pretty much my entire hobby experience.  GMing was clearly the toughest job.  It's only after I've started playing other games that I realized exactly how much mental overhead I've borrowed in how I've run D&D, overhead that wasn't necessary to run a game of D&D.  That that overhead was a combination of how I was "mentored" and the lack of good, clear methods of running in the rules.  That I didn't have to do it that way.  That let me then choose what I kept and didn't, and the fact that I've chosen to keep stuff I didn't have to is my choice, and not a requirement of GMing.



> ENWorld is a great example of GMs sharing their knowledge freely. But not one that a new GM is necessarily going to know about. It's certainly better nowadays thanks to the internet, but I don't think it's a given that a newbie will know the right place to look. And then there is also sorting good advice from bad...



EMWorld is a great place to be intimidated as a new GM.  We climb deep into the gears here, because we're gaming nerds that like to argue arguing about gaming.  It's not as friendly and welcoming as you think.


----------



## jasper (Feb 19, 2020)

I just had a great idea.
The DM is the MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER of the game so that the PLAYERS can be the MOST IMPORTANT people at the game.
See like all good dms. I stole it.  
DM is hard depending on your group. Bunch of Randoms at the FGLS and you are shy hard. Playing with your regular group which contains a sad sack and goober, that is hard. Playing with a group friends who will go easy on you, just a little hard.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Needing a mentor to show you the difficult ropes is another form of gatekeeping.




We're kind of lowering the bar on what it means to gatekeep, aren't we?  At this point just needing the rules is a form of gatekeeping.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

MGibster said:


> We're kind of lowering the bar on what it means to gatekeep, aren't we?  At this point just needing the rules is a form of gatekeeping.



Not at all.  If you cannot learn to GM from the rulebooks, but instead need a mentor to walk you though it, that's a problem.  Having a mentor isn't a problem, the problem is NEEDing a mentor to be a GM.

If the only way to learn the job is to be mentored, then there's gatekeeping.  Not all gatekeeping is bad, look at being an engineer, but I submit if that a hobby activity that shouldn't require mentoring to play is widely thought to need mentoring, then there's gatekeeping going on that needn't.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not at all.  If you cannot learn to GM from the rulebooks, but instead need a mentor to walk you though it, that's a problem.  Having a mentor isn't a problem, the problem is NEEDing a mentor to be a GM.
> 
> If the only way to learn the job is to be mentored, then there's gatekeeping.  Not all gatekeeping is bad, look at being an engineer, but I submit if that a hobby activity that shouldn't require mentoring to play is widely thought to need mentoring, then there's gatekeeping going on that needn't.




A mentor is not required to be a GM. It just helps. There’s no gatekeeping. Nobody is going to stop someone new to gaming from being a GM. It’s just a lot easier if you have someone who can help.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A mentor is not required to be a GM. It just helps. There’s no gatekeeping. Nobody is going to stop someone new to gaming from being a GM. It’s just a lot easier if you have someone who can help.




Different editions approach things differently though.  AD&D is extremely opaque from a new gamers POV.  To the point where people who have been playing the game for years can still be surprised by hidden rules buries somewhere behind the mountain of Gygaxian prose.  

OTOH, if we look at the 4e DMG, probably the most directly useful DMG in D&D history to teach someone how to run a game (not how to run every game, or how to run the perfect game, but, how to run A game) people absolutely lost their minds over the advice that was being given because it was "telling us how to run our games".  

Imagine trying to walk into 3.5 edition, cold, with no gaming experience whatsoever, and trying to run games.  There's a reason the hobby stagnated so badly for so long, not attracting any new members.  4e made a decent attempt at trying to bring in new blood, but, it was mired so badly behind an extremely strong negative reaction to the way the material was presented and some blindingly bad marketing decisions.  5e, OTOH, has managed to leapfrog over those mistakes, avoiding all of 4e's missteps, while still presenting D&D in the most easily consumable form the game has ever had.  The yearly release of Adventure Paths has been a fantastic way to create new GM's.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I somewhat disagree, but assume that you are correct.  So what?  On the gaming night in question - given how the game progressed - the most important thing that happened all night was the player intervening to help move the story forward.
> 
> 
> 
> So I see the issue, you are defining importance as "possessing the most authority.  No one disagrees that the DM has the most authority.  Instead, I counter that importance is based on what is actually done - not what one is  empowered to do but remains undone.




The DM choosing not to intervene is a choice. You chose not to cut the RP short. That doesn’t really demonstrate that the player who did intervene was the most important.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A mentor is not required to be a GM. It just helps. There’s no gatekeeping. Nobody is going to stop someone new to gaming from being a GM. It’s just a lot easier if you have someone who can help.




So, then, you agree GMing isn't that hard and having a nentor is just helping, like with anything else?  Like, say, being a player?

We're into a place where there's simultaneously an argument that GMing is hard to kearn on your own and that it's not hard enough to really need a mentor.

Either it's easy enough to pick up from the rules ir it isn't.  Which are you staking, here?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Needing a mentor to show you the difficult ropes is another form of gatekeeping.
> 
> And, D&D is bad in it's manuals (usually, some older exceptions) at teaching anything useful about GMing.  Largely, I think, because a lot of material on HOW to GM would make many returning customers upset.  There's already loads of complaints about the 'wasted' space in the 5e DMG that does talk about the basics of GMing.  So, yeah, that's gatekeeping as well.
> 
> ...



I don't think such a broad definition of gatekeeping is a useful one. Risk is a more complicated boardgame than Sorry. Are the makers of Risk guilty of gatekeeping, or is their game just different from Sorry?

IMO, gatekeeping is when people try to keep other people out of a particular group. The key word there is TRY. The gatekeeper needs to be attempting to make gatekeeping happen, whether through action or inaction.

I don't think that's the general case. Obviously, we can point to specific cases that ARE gatekeeping. For example, this hobby has traditionally been pretty bad with gatekeeping women. However, I don't think the same is true of GMs in general.

Not having the advice that you (Ovinomancer) would give new GMs in the DMG is not gatekeeping IMO. Maybe you're right, and your advice is the perfect solution to onboarding new GMs. Nonetheless, disagreeing with that advice isn't gatekeeping, unless the intent driving it is to prevent new GMs. A different GM might believe that his advice is much more practical and useful to new GMs. Even if he is wrong and you are right, it still isn't gatekeeping, because he too wants to make the new GMs job easier. Confounding the situation further is that not all advice works for everyone. Some people will have an easier time with one approach than another. We could maybe include all approaches and all the advice in the DMG, but odds are it would be so large that no one would be able to lift it.

As for ENWorld, that was an example of GMs not hording their knowledge. I wouldn't recommend it to a new GM either.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not at all.  If you cannot learn to GM from the rulebooks, but instead need a mentor to walk you though it, that's a problem.  Having a mentor isn't a problem, the problem is NEEDing a mentor to be a GM.
> 
> If the only way to learn the job is to be mentored, then there's gatekeeping.  Not all gatekeeping is bad, look at being an engineer, but I submit if that a hobby activity that shouldn't require mentoring to play is widely thought to need mentoring, then there's gatekeeping going on that needn't.




Couldn't this just be about how different people learn in different ways?  For some people it's easier to process information from a text for others it's easier to learn in a hands on environment...


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The DM is still first among equals.  Even if the player occasionally does more in session than the DM, he still doesn't take over the first among equals spot.  The DM still has far more responsibility, puts in far more work prepping for the game, plays far more roles, etc., than the players do.




What if a player consistently does more in session than the dm?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, you agree GMing isn't that hard and having a nentor is just helping, like with anything else?  Like, say, being a player?
> 
> We're into a place where there's simultaneously an argument that GMing is hard to kearn on your own and that it's not hard enough to really need a mentor.
> 
> Either it's easy enough to pick up from the rules ir it isn't.  Which are you staking, here?




Birdwatching is better with a mentor too.  It's still too hard for me to bother with.  Same goes for knitting.  GMing is hard, but I still bother with it even though I had no mentor.

It comes down to what people like to do.  Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding.  Those get traction.  Things that are hard and not found to be personally rewarding do not.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> What if a player consistently does more in session than the dm?



Then that player should DM.

Edit: Or really, that player IS DM, because that player is playing all the NPCs, the monsters, etc.  Moving the story forward does not mean doing more than the DM.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 19, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Then that player should DM.




Then I think I’ve proved my point. 

Now I can get behind the idea that the DM is typically the most important - just not always so.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Then I think I’ve proved my point.
> 
> Now I can get behind the idea that the DM is typically the most important - just not always so.



The issue you are having is that these roles are not a snapshot.  They encompass the entire campaign.  If you have to go to an aberrant game where the player is somehow doing more in the game than the DM, you've just proven that the DM is the most important role in general.  Having to resort to exceptions just proves the rule.

Edit: And by more important, I mean first among equals.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, you agree GMing isn't that hard and having a nentor is just helping, like with anything else?  Like, say, being a player?




I think the real question is whether it's as hard or harder than just playing (since this is the alternative to participate in the game)... My thoughts are for the lion share of ttrpg games out there it is

I also notice, though I could be wrong in my interpretation, that you seem to be inferring that only a minimum bar achievement in GM'ing is necessary and I find a few things wrong with this...

1. If that is the bar and the GM consistently stays at that bar... he probably won't have a game for very long.
2. It's still MUCH easier to attain the minimum bar for playing a TTRPG than running it.
3. You seem to assume that your method of running games (I'd be interested in seeing you lay this method out in actual concrete terms as opposed to just countering individual points) will be easier for a GM when in fact there seem to be hints that it probably won't be... or at least only for specific DM's.  As an example your method seems to rely on alot of improv, but that's a skill not all new DM's may be good at or even have (again why I'd like to see this "easy" method laid out in concrete format).


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> What if a player consistently does more in session than the dm?




Could you give an example of this? Because unless he's taken on a co-GM role or something similar I'd be curious as to an actual example of what this might look (i.e. a player consistently doing more in session than a DM...)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't think such a broad definition of gatekeeping is a useful one. Risk is a more complicated boardgame than Sorry. Are the makers of Risk guilty of gatekeeping, or is their game just different from Sorry?
> 
> IMO, gatekeeping is when people try to keep other people out of a particular group. The key word there is TRY. The gatekeeper needs to be attempting to make gatekeeping happen, whether through action or inaction.
> 
> ...



A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult.  You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements.  It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.

As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity.  There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition.  And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry.  If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have.  But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing.  That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping.  Is it intentional?  No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway.  Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Birdwatching is better with a mentor too.  It's still too hard for me to bother with.  Same goes for knitting.  GMing is hard, but I still bother with it even though I had no mentor.
> 
> It comes down to what people like to do.  Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding.  Those get traction.  Things that are hard and not found to be personally rewarding do not.



I think you're defining "hard" by "things I don't really want to do."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Couldn't this just be about how different people learn in different ways?  For some people it's easier to process information from a text for others it's easier to learn in a hands on environment...



This is an interesting point, but it's kind of orthogonal to the idea that GMing is hard, in and of itself, and not hard due to how you learn it.  Still, it's a very keen observation.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult.  You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements.  It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.
> 
> As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity.  There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition.  And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry.  If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have.  But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing.  That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping.  Is it intentional?  No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway.  Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.




OK here's a very specific case that is true in any game I've seen that has a GM:
Adjudication of an action and consequence is harder than declaring that action.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> *It comes down to what people like to do.*  Things can be hard and still be personally rewarding.  Those get traction.  Things that are hard and not found to be personally rewarding do not.




I think this is a gigantic piece that gets overlooked in these discussions... No amount of making it hard or easy is going to get someone who doesn't want to DM to DM.  And really I find it hard to believe that there are hordes of DM's who think they would enjoy it but are just not giving it a try because...reasons.  

Honestly I think more people are always going to want to play out the star(s) in the game as opposed to creating & running behind the scenes machinery.  The fact that playing is easier than running is just icing on the cake for many.  I mean what's the ratio of people who learn game design/programming to those that choose to play videogames, and while yes... it's on a much larger scale, it's also a very similar situation.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're defining "hard" by "things I don't really want to do."




Nonsense. 

Birdwatching is hard because I get stiff sitting in one position for long periods and am colour blind making species identification difficult.

Knitting is hard because my manual dexterity isn't the best and despite repeated coaching I am incapable of achieving a good pearl.

Could I pursue either or both?  I guess, but they are too hard compared to the personal reward.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

Also, harder does not necessarily mean hard.  Take walking and running.  It's more difficult to run than to walk, but it's still pretty easy to run.  However, there's a big difference between the minimum skill at running(average person) and being able to run a marathon or be a world class sprinter.  

Even with something simple like running, people with natural gifts and/or training(having a mentor) will be better at it than the vast majority of us.  Being a DM is the same way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I think the real question is whether it's as hard or harder than just playing (since this is the alternative to participate in the game)... My thoughts are for the lion share of ttrpg games out there it is
> 
> I also notice, though I could be wrong in my interpretation, that you seem to be inferring that only a minimum bar achievement in GM'ing is necessary and I find a few things wrong with this...
> 
> 1. If that is the bar and the GM consistently stays at that bar... he probably won't have a game for very long.



Why not?  If they're having fun, this is fine.  If they aren't having fun, that's a completely different question from how hard GMing is.  Again, this goes to the accretion of expectation and tradition built up in certain segments of the hobby rather than an actual evaluation of how hard it is to run a game of D&D.  Sure, it can be very hard to live up to _this table's_ expectations, but that's that table, not GMing.


> 2. It's still MUCH easier to attain the minimum bar for playing a TTRPG than running it.



Oh, that very much depends on the game system.  For D&D, I'll agree that there's extremely little expected of the players in the tradition of play that has built up.  But, that's not actually in the rules as such.  The rules say that player should be actively engaging the situation and coming up with actions which the GM adjudicates.  Depending on the fiction, that can be very demanding.  Or not.  The tradition is usually to put all of the effort on the GM's shoulders, but that's not required.


> 3. You seem to assume that your method of running games (I'd be interested in seeing you lay this method out in actual concrete terms as opposed to just countering individual points) will be easier for a GM when in fact there seem to be hints that it probably won't be... or at least only for specific DM's.  As an example your method seems to rely on alot of improv, but that's a skill not all new DM's may be good at or even have (again why I'd like to see this "easy" method laid out in concrete format).



Oh, no, I work very hard for my D&D games.  I work that hard because that's the expectation of my table and because, usually, I enjoy it.  But, I recognize that that's my choice, not a requirement of running a D&D game.  And, when I GM Blades in the Dark, I show up at the table with no prep, I wait for the players to start driving the action, and I react to each thing individually, building up the game by pieces.  It's super easy, and my players end up doing as much work as I do.  So, no, the difficulting in GMing is largely due to choice and the traditions and expectations built up around the games played rather than an actual, required, difficulty increase.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Birdwatching is hard because I get stiff sitting in one position for long periods and am colour blind making species identification difficult.
> 
> ...



Choice, then, not innate difficulty.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Choice, then, not innate difficulty.




Um,  I've tried both.  I stopped because they're hard.  Did I stop because I chose to?  Yes.  Was it because they're hard? Yes.  

Did legislation pass preventing people from choosing not to pursue activities they deem hard?  I must have missed that.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why not?  If they're having fun, this is fine.  If they aren't having fun, that's a completely different question from how hard GMing is.  Again, this goes to the accretion of expectation and tradition built up in certain segments of the hobby rather than an actual evaluation of how hard it is to run a game of D&D.  Sure, it can be very hard to live up to _this table's_ expectations, but that's that table, not GMing.




You are going to be far more likely to be having fun with a good DM(very likely) than with a minimum quality DM(unlikely).  You just need to be able to put in monsters to fight and treasure to get, and know the rules to combat.  As long as you supply a way to level up, the game doesn't break and you are DMing.  Roleplaying NPCs and such doesn't actually need to be in a game.

The minimum it takes to run a game results in a rather crappy game.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, you agree GMing isn't that hard and having a nentor is just helping, like with anything else?  Like, say, being a player?
> 
> We're into a place where there's simultaneously an argument that GMing is hard to kearn on your own and that it's not hard enough to really need a mentor.
> 
> Either it's easy enough to pick up from the rules ir it isn't.  Which are you staking, here?




It’s hard to learn on your own, but you don’t require a mentor to do it. Hell, it’s hard to do it with a mentor. But that doesn’t constitute gatekeeping. Something being hard isn’t gatekeeping.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> OK here's a very specific case that is true in any game I've seen that has a GM:
> Adjudication of an action and consequence is harder than declaring that action.



Is it?  Am I, as GM, taking a risk to my character?  Am I, as GM, weighing all the option available and trying to meet my character's goals alongside my goals as player?  Do I not need, as player, to have a fair grasp of probabilities to determine the riskiness of my action declaration?

As GM, to adjudicate, I have to determine if the outcome is in questions. That's not hard, I could, according to the DMG, default to 'yes.'  Then I ask for a check.  Again, according to the DMG, I should be asking for an ability check, so I only have 6 options.  The player should be suggesting a proficiency, if one applies, so that's a pretty easy yes or no. I set a check -- the DMG again recommends that almost all checks be 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard), and that's according to the fiction, so should be easy to pick if the thing attempted is easy, moderate, or hard. Then the player has to role, the mechanics tell me if it's a success.  I narrate the oucome according to the dice.  The hard part of this might be the part where I decide how I narrate a failure -- fail forward, success with complication, or no progress.

This conjecture only applies if you really think the players do not care about what's going on and not declaring actions with full intent.  IE, that the situation is one where the action declaration is trivial for the player but complicated for the GM, and I really can't come up with a non-ridiculous example of this.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> It’s hard to learn on your own, but you don’t require a mentor to do it. Hell, it’s hard to do it with a mentor. But that doesn’t constitute gatekeeping. Something being hard isn’t gatekeeping.



But, it's not hard.  That's the gatekeeping.  It's not harder than playing, really, as you need to know the same general things to do both:  how the mechanics work and the idea of a shared fictional space.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Then I think I’ve proved my point.
> 
> Now I can get behind the idea that the DM is typically the most important - just not always so.




Not really, no. In the example where the player ‘does more in session’ than the DM, the DM is still more important - it’s just that it’s possible the player would make a better DM.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> But, it's not hard.  That's the gatekeeping.  It's not harder than playing, really, as you need to know the same general things to do both:  how the mechanics work and the idea of a shared fictional space.




My own experience as both player and GM, combined with conversations I’ve had with other GMs and players, suggests to me that this is very much not the case.

When I’m a player, I don’t need to know as much of the mechanics as when I GM. Nor do I need to know/think as much about the ‘shared fictional space.’


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> But, it's not hard.  That's the gatekeeping.  It's not harder than playing, really, as you need to know the same general things to do both:  how the mechanics work and the idea of a shared fictional space.



Yes it is harder than playing.  When I DM I have to create the encounters.  Players don't have to do that.  When I DM I have to roleplay all of the monsters and other NPCs. Players deal with 1 PC.  When I DM I have to adjudicate the actions of all of the PCs.  Players have to do 0 of that.  

Also, players don't need to know the rules to the same level as the DM, or even all of the rules.  The DM is the one who adjudicates actions.  When you get down to it, he's the only one that needs to know most of the rules.  A player should just be able to say, "I want to try and grab the dagger before the guild master does." and let the DM tell him what needs to be rolled and how the action plays out.

Again, harder doesn't mean hard, but there's simply no way that playing is just as hard as DMing.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why not?  If they're having fun, this is fine.  If they aren't having fun, that's a completely different question from how hard GMing is.  Again, this goes to the accretion of expectation and tradition built up in certain segments of the hobby rather than an actual evaluation of how hard it is to run a game of D&D.  Sure, it can be very hard to live up to _this table's_ expectations, but that's that table, not GMing.




Why not?  Because I would assume there is a purpose or goal to GM'ing... which let's one know whether they did it successfully or not... something like having a game that your players want to play... do you agree?  If not, well driving isn't hard without any sort of training because any  12 or 13 year old can push pedals with their feet, shift a gear and turn a steering wheel... irregardless of what the result of them doing that on a busy (or even non-busy) street is...



Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, that very much depends on the game system.  For D&D, I'll agree that there's extremely little expected of the players in the tradition of play that has built up.  But, that's not actually in the rules as such.  The rules say that player should be actively engaging the situation and coming up with actions which the GM adjudicates.  Depending on the fiction, that can be very demanding.  Or not.  The tradition is usually to put all of the effort on the GM's shoulders, but that's not required.




I disagree.  The DM has to create these situations (frame scenes) and adjudicate the actions that every one of their players is making in said situation as well as declare actions for and adjudicate said actions of any NPC's monsters, etc in the situation... The player has to declare their action.  We aren't even talking funny voices and facial expressions just basic running of the game and the DM already has more to do.  can you name a game where the procedures specifically call out the players having to do *more* not equal but *more* than the GM?  I'd honestly be interested in taking a look at said game out of curiosity. 



Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, no, I work very hard for my D&D games.  I work that hard because that's the expectation of my table and because, usually, I enjoy it.  But, I recognize that that's my choice, not a requirement of running a D&D game.  And, when I GM Blades in the Dark, I show up at the table with no prep, I wait for the players to start driving the action, and I react to each thing individually, building up the game by pieces.  It's super easy, and my players end up doing as much work as I do.  So, no, the difficulting in GMing is largely due to choice and the traditions and expectations built up around the games played rather than an actual, required, difficulty increase.




It's funny you bring up BiTD because I am currently running it as a break for our normal D&D campaign and in all honesty I find it hard and exhausting in a way my pre-prepped D&D games aren't.  I have to continuously improv various NPC's & situations... continuously judge position and effect for actions... frame scenes... write down notes so I don't loos all of that improv I'm doing and keep track of the different phases we are in, some of which have totally different mechanical resolutions.  It's fun but I wouldn't call it easy, difference in where the mental load is maybe... but not necessarily easier than D&D prep.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Is it?  Am I, as GM, taking a risk to my character?  Am I, as GM, weighing all the option available and trying to meet my character's goals alongside my goals as player?  Do I not need, as player, to have a fair grasp of probabilities to determine the riskiness of my action declaration?
> 
> As GM, to adjudicate, I have to determine if the outcome is in questions. That's not hard, I could, according to the DMG, default to 'yes.'  Then I ask for a check.  Again, according to the DMG, I should be asking for an ability check, so I only have 6 options.  The player should be suggesting a proficiency, if one applies, so that's a pretty easy yes or no. I set a check -- the DMG again recommends that almost all checks be 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard), and that's according to the fiction, so should be easy to pick if the thing attempted is easy, moderate, or hard. Then the player has to role, the mechanics tell me if it's a success.  I narrate the oucome according to the dice.  The hard part of this might be the part where I decide how I narrate a failure -- fail forward, success with complication, or no progress.
> 
> This conjecture only applies if you really think the players do not care about what's going on and not declaring actions with full intent.  IE, that the situation is one where the action declaration is trivial for the player but complicated for the GM, and I really can't come up with a non-ridiculous example of this.




I claim it is harder, yes.  One must consider many more things when adjudicating an attempt than the person does when declaring that attempt.

Taking risk is not hard.  I take a risk every time I but a lottery ticket or ask my spouse on a date.  Those are not hard acts, but risk is involved.  Calculating the second integral of an discontinuous function can be hard, but there is no risk to the activity.

1) One must examine the situation to determine if the declaration is even possible inside the shared fiction or if the declarer made a basic error. "I swing my sword!" "Um, the receiving staff took all weapons when you entered the mansion, remember?"  The declarer should perform this step, but quality assurance is necessary.
2) One may need to determine if a unrevealed aspect of the fiction prevents the action.  "I swing my sword!" "OK, as you reach for the hilt you discover it is missing!".  The declarer cannot perform this step.
3) One needs to then examine the situation and determine if a default answer is appropriate or if stakes are present that would require some form of negotiation or check.  The declarer can not perform this step.
4) One then needs to determine stake either by (a) knowing the rules, (b) determining what the shared fiction will look like upon resolution, or (c) negotiating.  The declarer can be involved, but does not control this step.
5) One needs to determine the mechanic used for resolution.  Fiat, die roll, talking, bribery, whatever.
6) One needs to update the shared fiction with the actual result and be prepared to handle the next declaration.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I claim it is harder, yes.  One must consider many more things when adjudicating an attempt than the person does when declaring that attempt.
> 
> Taking risk is not hard.  I take a risk every time I but a lottery ticket or ask my spouse on a date.  Those are not hard acts, but risk is involved.  Calculating the second integral of an discontinuous function can be hard, but there is no risk to the activity.
> 
> ...




Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Imaro said:


> So if the player declares they grapple a monster in D&D 3.5... That's easy to adjudicate?
> 
> Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...




Easier than 1e...


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Let's also not forget in D&D the DM is responsible for also declaring and adjudicating the actions of numerous NPC's and monsters...




True enough, though tangential.  That's another area where the GM role can be harder.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult.  You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements.  It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.



Not just D&D: Pathfinder, CoC, Savage Worlds...

The initial statement was “The GM is the most important person at the table”.  I’m not sure it is really useful to respond “Not if you exclude the games that 80% of people are playing...”


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> A entire game being more difficult doesn't really impact whether GMing is more difficult.  You have to make the specific case. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the reasons cited for GMing being more difficult in playing are preferences, not requirements.  It's also very D&D specific, which ensaddens me.
> 
> As for gatekeeping, I do see the reasons given in this thread for why GMing is hard as the kind of gatekeeping that accretes around an activity.  There's a preponderance of opinion that GMing requires being good at this host of things that are, ultimately nothing but preference and tradition.  And, that gestalt conception of what GMing is (at least in D&D) erects a barrier to entry.  If a new GM uses the random dungeon creator in the DMG, puts in some monsters and a trap, and runs an Orc and Pie game, it's indisputable that they are GMing D&D, maybe well for the goals they have.  But, according to this thread, they haven't yet reached the bar for GMing because they aren't acting out NPCs, they aren't taking copious notes, they're scope isn't big enough... pick a post from this thread and you'll likely find some added requirement for GMing.  That accretion of traditionals and expectations is definitely gatekeeping.  Is it intentional?  No, I don't think so, in that people don't intend their ideas to be gatekeeping, but it does that anyway.  Someone that wanted to start GMing that read this thread will come away with the idea that they have soooo very much they have to do, and that doing it is hard, and that's gatekeeping.



I don't think most people (if anyone) in this thread are gatekeeping. You and I have already agreed that ENWorld is not the place to send a newbie, so I'm unsure as to why you're even making this argument. Are you suggesting that we password protect the thread and vet anyone who is interested so that only experienced GMs can read it?

People are allowed to have discussions on topics on the internet without it being gatekeeping. 

While gatekeeping is a serious issue, I don't think that most of the things you put forth as gatekeeping are actually gatekeeping. I suspect that by your definition, if I were to do my absolute best to help out a prospective GM, but I gave them bad advice unknowingly (maybe it worked for me but doesn't work for them) that I would be guilty of gatekeeping. Which as far as I'm concerned makes it a useless definition, because literally anything could fall under that scope. A more useful definition of gatekeeping is based on intent. If I do my best to help a newbie, I am not gatekeeping, irrespective of whether I was actually helpful. If I tried to hinder or drive away the newbie I am gatekeeping, regardless of whether or not I am successful.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> My own experience as both player and GM, combined with conversations I’ve had with other GMs and players, suggests to me that this is very much not the case.
> 
> When I’m a player, I don’t need to know as much of the mechanics as when I GM. Nor do I need to know/think as much about the ‘shared fictional space.’




I am currently DMing a 5e game for my group. I do not know the rules as well as two of my players. This does not in any way impede me from DMing.

Ultimately, the DM needs an idea of the rules and general procedures. Instead of remembering all the rules, I think it would benefit the DM to know that uncertainty of a rule means he should make a ruling and keep the game moving. 



Maxperson said:


> Yes it is harder than playing.  When I DM I have to create the encounters.  Players don't have to do that.  When I DM I have to roleplay all of the monsters and other NPCs. Players deal with 1 PC.  When I DM I have to adjudicate the actions of all of the PCs.  Players have to do 0 of that.
> 
> Also, players don't need to know the rules to the same level as the DM, or even all of the rules.  The DM is the one who adjudicates actions.  When you get down to it, he's the only one that needs to know most of the rules.  A player should just be able to say, "I want to try and grab the dagger before the guild master does." and let the DM tell him what needs to be rolled and how the action plays out.
> 
> Again, harder doesn't mean hard, but there's simply no way that playing is just as hard as DMing.




I think that generally it's more a case that the DM has more to do than the players. I would agree with that. Exactly how much more, I would probably disagree with most. Also, if any of the individual tasks of being a DM is all that hard.



Imaro said:


> It's funny you bring up BiTD because I am currently running it as a break for our normal D&D campaign and in all honesty I find it hard and exhausting in a way my pre-prepped D&D games aren't.  I have to continuously improv various NPC's & situations... continuously judge position and effect for actions... frame scenes... write down notes so I don't loos all of that improv I'm doing and keep track of the different phases we are in, some of which have totally different mechanical resolutions.  It's fun but I wouldn't call it easy, difference in where the mental load is maybe... but not necessarily easier than D&D prep.




Blades is complex in ways, for sure, but it's mostly in how all the different pieces fit together. I also think that the learning curve with Blades in the Dark mostly seems to come from having to unlearn what D&D and similar games have ingrained in us. 

I had one player who was only passing familiar with D&D, and he took to Blades so much faster than my D&D guys did. 



FrozenNorth said:


> Not just D&D: Pathfinder, CoC, Savage Worlds...
> 
> The initial statement was “The GM is the most important person at the table”.  I’m not sure it is really useful to respond “Not if you exclude the games that 80% of people are playing...”




Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Blades is complex in ways, for sure, but it's mostly in how all the different pieces fit together. I also think that the learning curve with Blades in the Dark mostly seems to come from having to unlearn what D&D and similar games have ingrained in us.
> 
> I had one player who was only passing familiar with D&D, and he took to Blades so much faster than my D&D guys did.




Not sure I agree with the unlearning part as my players had no issues with BiTD... It's pretty traditional in it's player side mechanics... of course we are speaking to whether the GM has a higher cognitive, mental, etc. workload than the players In BitD (After running it I still believe they do) not whether it's harder than D&D (I don't think either is "harder" in an objective sense but running them requires different skillsets which may be harder or easier for some to leverage.).


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?




What are these techniques?  And would they do that universally for anyone who leveraged them?


----------



## macd21 (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I am currently DMing a 5e game for my group. I do not know the rules as well as two of my players. This does not in any way impede me from DMing.




A player knowing the rules better than the DM isn’t the issue. It’s that a DM needs to have a higher familiarity with the rules than is required of a player. There is a far lower level of system mastery required of a 5ed player than 5ed DM. And a DM having more system mastery is more beneficial to the table than a player having it.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A player knowing the rules better than the DM isn’t the issue. It’s that a DM needs to have a higher familiarity with the rules than is required of a player. There is a far lower level of system mastery required of a 5ed player than 5ed DM. And a DM having more system mastery is more beneficial to the table than a player having it.




I agree about a player having system mastery not being a problem. I have a player in one of the campaigns I'm running who's probably about as up on the rules as I am, if not more, and I use him as a resource (and he doesn't mind that). When I play, I try to be at least as helpful as he is.


----------



## pogre (Feb 19, 2020)

Twenty years ago I would have found this question ridiculous. Of course the DM is most important!

However, now that I have an awesome group rolling along in a weekly game again - I will never take good players for granted ever again.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right, but if some games have GMing techniques that may help ease the burden of running game, perhaps there's something to be learned from those games for folks running D&D?



There is absolutely room for resources to help DMs (both new and old) improve their game.

That said, finding and using those resources (and avoiding resources that though well-intentioned may be detrimental to your game) is a skill in and of itself.

I’m also skeptical of any claim that X system has made GMing as easy as being a player, and can (should?) be imported into D&D.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> While gatekeeping is a serious issue, I don't think that most of the things you put forth as gatekeeping are actually gatekeeping. I suspect that by your definition, if I were to do my absolute best to help out a prospective GM, but I gave them bad advice unknowingly (maybe it worked for me but doesn't work for them) that I would be guilty of gatekeeping. Which as far as I'm concerned makes it a useless definition, because literally anything could fall under that scope. A more useful definition of gatekeeping is based on intent. If I do my best to help a newbie, I am not gatekeeping, irrespective of whether I was actually helpful. If I tried to hinder or drive away the newbie I am gatekeeping, regardless of whether or not I am successful.




Technically, I would say that something being harder than another is somewhat gatekept, at least in an structural sense - and that's a far cry from the gatekeeping term we use when we talk about actively trying to keep the unqualified or uninitiated hoi polloi out of the hobby. Equating the two is being unhelpfully pedantic about the term gatekeeping (something we've seen on these boards before).

The big question here is whether or not Ovinomancer is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two - the fairly uncontroversial fact that GMing a game requires a bit more investment in effort than playing (and thus is harder) and thus suffers from a certain amount of inevitable, structural gatekeeping or that identifying the role of GM as being more difficult than being a player is performing some sort of unwelcome community gatekeeping. I hope he's just being unhelpfully pedantic.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 19, 2020)

The question that's been nagging me the whole thread, given the fairly obvious fact that a GM is in a fairly important position relative to any single one of the players in the game, what does this observation get us? Is there a further point to this topic?
So, the GM is the most important individual at the table. And...?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Technically, I would say that something being harder than another is somewhat gatekept, at least in an structural sense - and that's a far cry from the gatekeeping term we use when we talk about actively trying to keep the unqualified or uninitiated hoi polloi out of the hobby. Equating the two is being unhelpfully pedantic about the term gatekeeping (something we've seen on these boards before).
> 
> The big question here is whether or not Ovinomancer is deliberately trying to obfuscate the two - the fairly uncontroversial fact that GMing a game requires a bit more investment in effort than playing (and thus is harder) and thus suffers from a certain amount of inevitable, structural gatekeeping or that identifying the role of GM as being more difficult than being a player is performing some sort of unwelcome community gatekeeping. I hope he's just being unhelpfully pedantic.



I hadn't considered the term in the structural sense, but I also don't feel like that's what's being discussed. We already have versions of D&D that are less 'gatekept' in this respect, from the starter sets. Those are designed to ease entry into DMing. I suppose that one could argue that they don't go far enough, but when is enough sufficient to not be 'gatekeeping'? There's always going to be some minimal barrier to entry. I mean, given that the rules are in books, you arguably need some basic proficiency with reading (or at least someone to read them to you). I wouldn't call that gatekeeping (in any meaningful sense of the term) though.

Edit: After further consideration, I'm not sure I agree that the term gatekept applies to the structural sense. It certainly is a 'barrier to entry'. But gatekeeping strongly implies trying to keep someone out. I've never encountered it used synonymously with 'barrier to entry' before now, and I don't think that's a useful definition either.

Another Edit: Gatekeeping is a barrier to entry, but not every barrier to entry is gatekeeping. Serious study of quantum mechanics has a high barrier of entry simply because the concepts involved aren't easy. Gatekeeping could be another barrier, but is likely to vary by individual experience.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 19, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Not sure I agree with the unlearning part as my players had no issues with BiTD... It's pretty traditional in it's player side mechanics... of course we are speaking to whether the GM has a higher cognitive, mental, etc. workload than the players In BitD (After running it I still believe they do) not whether it's harder than D&D (I don't think either is "harder" in an objective sense but running them requires different skillsets which may be harder or easier for some to leverage.).




My players found the ability to introduce elements into the fictional world to be a pretty significant departure from D&D. And also things like players deciding what Action is relevant, and players deciding how much XP they get.....although these were easier things to grasp. 

On the GM side, I don't know if there's more cognitive load for Blades. I think that the system is there to do the heavy lifting so that the GM is free to determine the specifics of the outcome that the dice have called for.



Imaro said:


> What are these techniques?  And would they do that universally for anyone who leveraged them?




I think a big one, for me anyway, is the idea of a Partial Success, or Success with a Complication. Those 4s and 5s in Blades are what drives a lot of the fiction, and I've found I can adapt that to D&D very easily, and suddenly encounters are becoming a little more dynamic because I'm adding complications or setbacks throughout. 

"Play to find out" is an ethos that I've found is very helpful for any game I GM, even if it isn't a perfect fit for a specific game, like D&D. I've found that blending that mentality with the kind of prepared elements typically associated with D&D makes my game smoother, and focuses me on what's happening in play and not so much what I had written prior to the start of the session. 

Then there are always other specific mechanics that can be swiped from one game. I mentioned earlier in the thread that we've ditched the default 5E initiative process in favor of the one from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. I've also instituted an Inspiration Pool where there are extra d20s and any player can use one at any time to gain advantage on a roll, or they can use two to roll over. These alternate elements don't work wonders to speed up play, but they do make things more dynamic and the players are more engaged and aware, which does wind up taking the load off of me. 

All this stuff is subjective, of course, and what works for one person may not for another. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas out there that we could come up with.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 19, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> There is absolutely room for resources to help DMs (both new and old) improve their game.
> 
> That said, finding and using those resources (and avoiding resources that though well-intentioned may be detrimental to your game) is a skill in and of itself.
> 
> I’m also skeptical of any claim that X system has made GMing as easy as being a player, and can (should?) be imported into D&D.




Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. Like I said, I'm not really trying to say that GMing is as easy as playing. My point is it's not as significantly harder (or need not be, at least) that many seem to think. I'd like to see more people try to GM, and the perception that it's so hard is an obstacle. 

I think there are resources available to help make gaming easier. Like anything else, there's plenty of noise to go with the signal. But there is stuff out there. Of course, what will work for one person may not for another.

As for what can or should be ported into D&D, that's certainly going to depend on the specifics. There are plenty of mechanics that, however great they may be for their respective game, simply wouldn't work in D&D. There are others that may.....see my post above in response to @Imaro for a few examples. 

I do think that playing more games than D&D and those similar to it is something that will help a lot of people by offering different methods and practices that, even if they cannot be ported directly to D&D, can inform how they DM.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 19, 2020)

macd21 said:


> A player knowing the rules better than the DM isn’t the issue. It’s that a DM needs to have a higher familiarity with the rules than is required of a player. There is a far lower level of system mastery required of a 5ed player than 5ed DM. And a DM having more system mastery is more beneficial to the table than a player having it.




I would agree with the last sentence....more knowledge of the rules may certainly be beneficial to the table. But at the same time, I'm thinking of the guy I know who can tell you what page in the PHB to find a specific rule for just about every edition of the game.....and yet, he's not a very good DM. Rules proficiency is a component of the role, for sure, but it's also a component for players, too. 

My point about a player knowing more is that player can help shore up the DM's shortcoming. It really isn't absolutely necessary that a DM be ultra rules knowledgeable. If the players know more, they can help out. If they know less, then they'll go along with the DM's rulings, and everyone can learn as they play. 

I mean, I learned to play as a little kid taught by slightly older kids, and doing things maybe 25% correctly. But we were having a blast.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> My players found the ability to introduce elements into the fictional world to be a pretty significant departure from D&D. And also things like players deciding what Action is relevant, and players deciding how much XP they get.....although these were easier things to grasp.




I don't think any of this was that big a deal for my players... they've been introducing elements into D&D through backstory, goals, etc for years it's just a step less removed to throw the stuff into play also since we've played D&D with the "any ability score + skill" variant, picking your approach also wasn't earth shattering for them with the XP well they reward inspiration in 5e to each other so there's that....



hawkeyefan said:


> On the GM side, I don't know if there's more cognitive load for Blades. I think that the system is there to do the heavy lifting so that the GM is free to determine the specifics of the outcome that the dice have called for.




How does the system do the heavy lifting... IMO the heavy lifting is determining position and effect (often IMO harder than selecting a DC because there are now 2 axis instead of one), coming up with the fiction to suit the various results that can happen (D&D can be and is often binary while BiTD rarely is so instead of one outcome I have to come up with various smaller outcomes on the fly)... and framing the scenes on the fly (adding an element X infinity without the break afforded by having numerous players to pick up the slack when one is tired or hard pressed to come up with stuff.)



hawkeyefan said:


> I think a big one, for me anyway, is the idea of a Partial Success, or Success with a Complication. Those 4s and 5s in Blades are what drives a lot of the fiction, and I've found I can adapt that to D&D very easily, and suddenly encounters are becoming a little more dynamic because I'm adding complications or setbacks throughout.




See I fail to see how this makes running a game easier.  How is telling a new DM that they have to come up with and adjudicate success conditions as well as various complications on the fly easier or simpler than having to decide a binary result?  Especially if said binary result is planned out ahead of time?



hawkeyefan said:


> "Play to find out" is an ethos that I've found is very helpful for any game I GM, even if it isn't a perfect fit for a specific game, like D&D. I've found that blending that mentality with the kind of prepared elements typically associated with D&D makes my game smoother, and focuses me on what's happening in play and not so much what I had written prior to the start of the session.
> 
> Then there are always other specific mechanics that can be swiped from one game. I mentioned earlier in the thread that we've ditched the default 5E initiative process in favor of the one from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures. I've also instituted an Inspiration Pool where there are extra d20s and any player can use one at any time to gain advantage on a roll, or they can use two to roll over. These alternate elements don't work wonders to speed up play, but they do make things more dynamic and the players are more engaged and aware, which does wind up taking the load off of me.
> 
> All this stuff is subjective, of course, and what works for one person may not for another. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas out there that we could come up with.




IMO this seems to be conflating personal preference with "easier" and because it is your personal preference it probably feels easier to you... not sure that would hold out in the wild with a brand new DM/GM


----------



## aco175 (Feb 19, 2020)

To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure?  Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

aco175 said:


> To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure?  Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.



I can't say with certainty. My group occasionally runs published adventures, but not often. We prefer homebrew.

That said, I would be surprised if there was a difference. Running a published adventure can be as much (or more) work than homebrewing. With a published adventure you need to absorb the material at a minimum, whereas with homebrew you're free to improvise as needed. (Obviously, you can improvise with published adventures as well, but too much improvisation without being familiar with the material can paint you into a corner, since you might establish something that contradicts an important fact in the module. Additionally, under certain circumstances, such as organized play, your authority to improvise may be limited.)

Important in what sense? In that they have the greatest authority? The most responsibilities? That only their fun matters? Some of those I would posit as factual, whereas other(s) I would say are an indicator of unhealthy hubris.

I don't think that running a module makes the GM's role any less significant FWIW. It makes certain aspects of the GM's job easier, but IME it can make others more challenging. I don't think that homebrew vs module changes much with respect to the GM's role overall.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> As for ENWorld, that was an example of GMs not hording their knowledge. I wouldn't recommend it to a new GM either.




Actually, as a relatively new GM, I find ENWorld extremely helpful. Research is easy for me, though, and I am used to sorting through the parts that will help me and the parts that will not.



macd21 said:


> It’s hard to learn on your own, but you don’t require a mentor to do it. Hell, it’s hard to do it with a mentor. But that doesn’t constitute gatekeeping. Something being hard isn’t gatekeeping.




Agreed.



Fanaelialae said:


> I can't say with certainty. My group occasionally runs published adventures, but not often. We prefer homebrew.
> 
> That said, I would be surprised if there was a difference. Running a published adventure can be as much (or more) work than homebrewing. With a published adventure you need to absorb the material at a minimum, whereas with homebrew you're free to improvise as needed. (Obviously, you can improvise with published adventures as well, but too much improvisation without being familiar with the material can paint you into a corner, since you might establish something that contradicts an important fact in the module. Additionally, under certain circumstances, such as organized play, your authority to improvise may be limited.)
> 
> ...




I can somewhat see your point, since I have to do so much research about the various areas we go to. However, as a relatively new GM, having a published adventure to start with makes a ton of difference.


----------



## aco175 (Feb 19, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Important in what sense? In that they have the greatest authority? The most responsibilities? That only their fun matters? Some of those I would posit as factual, whereas other(s) I would say are an indicator of unhealthy hubris.



I guess I'm not sure is some let hubris in when they think that their game is the end all.  I tend to think that when I used to homebrew my whole world I felt I needed to control some things and maybe some of that led me to think I was more 'right' in making the rules and being important.  It may also have been that I was younger and some of that may have crept in.

Today we play with FR and I generally make my own adventures but use the shell they provide.  While I do not think I have some of the same attitudes, I wonder if others have .


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2020)

The Green Hermit said:


> I can somewhat see your point, since I have to do so much research about the various areas we go to. However, as a relatively new GM, having a published adventure to start with makes a ton of difference.



I don't deny it. IIRC I had an easier time using published modules myself, when I first started out. 

Different approaches work better for different people. Which is why it's so hard to come up with generalized DMing advice for new DMs. What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me.

My younger sister, for example, completely homebrewed the one and only game she ever ran. She was a natural at DMing, far beyond my skill level at the time (we were in our teens) even though I had been studying DMing techniques for years at that point (and had run a few games as well).

Knowing her, however, I honestly don't think she would have done as well had she tried to run a published adventure. 

There's nothing wrong with preferring published adventures. It's simply that they work better for some DMs than others.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Ultimately, the DM needs an idea of the rules and general procedures. Instead of remembering all the rules, I think it would benefit the DM to know that uncertainty of a rule means he should make a ruling and keep the game moving.



My take on this has always been that as DM I don't need to know or remember all the rules all the time but I do need to remember roughly where to look them up as and when required.

Put another way, if you're going to memorize anything make it the rulebook index.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I don't think any of this was that big a deal for my players... they've been introducing elements into D&D through backstory, goals, etc for years it's just a step less removed to throw the stuff into play also since we've played D&D with the "any ability score + skill" variant, picking your approach also wasn't earth shattering for them with the XP well they reward inspiration in 5e to each other so there's that....




I meant more declaring elements as part of an action...especially Flashbacks. That seems to me the big one that throws people. 

Backstory and goals and fictional elements like NPCs and organizations and all of that were all things my players were comfortable with. Also largely the kind of stuff that Blades bakes into PC creation. 



Imaro said:


> How does the system do the heavy lifting... IMO the heavy lifting is determining position and effect (often IMO harder than selecting a DC because there are now 2 axis instead of one), coming up with the fiction to suit the various results that can happen (D&D can be and is often binary while BiTD rarely is so instead of one outcome I have to come up with various smaller outcomes on the fly)... and framing the scenes on the fly (adding an element X infinity without the break afforded by having numerous players to pick up the slack when one is tired or hard pressed to come up with stuff.)




I find the position and effect to be pretty intuitive. The narration of what happens on a partial success or a failure is the area that’s trickier for me, but after some time I’ve become comfortable with it, and think I do a decent job of varying consequences a bit without relying to heavily on one kind. The fiction first approach is one that clicks for me. 




Imaro said:


> See I fail to see how this makes running a game easier.  How is telling a new DM that they have to come up with and adjudicate success conditions as well as various complications on the fly easier or simpler than having to decide a binary result?  Especially if said binary result is planned out ahead of time?




I wasn’t necessarily saying this is something I’d recommend for new DMs. Just that these approaches are worthwhile to learn or see in practice, and may help making the job easier.

Having said that though, I would think someone whose first exposure to RPGs was Blades and then they went to D&D, that shift would likely be easier than vice versa. 



Imaro said:


> IMO this seems to be conflating personal preference with "easier" and because it is your personal preference it probably feels easier to you... not sure that would hold out in the wild with a brand new DM/GM




Some of them, sure. I’ve said it’s subjective and that different things will work for different people. 

Let’s move away from specific examples and instead ask “Can every GM do something new to make their game easier?”

I would lean heavily toward a yes, with the specific thing varying by GM.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

aco175 said:


> To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure?  Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.




I'm pretty sure there's a difference between DMs who homebrew their settings and DMs who don't. I'd guess the differences are probably on axes roughly corresponding to time, energy, and experience. In my case I have tons of time, a reasonable amount of experience, and intermittent spurts of energy. Also, I literally can't make sense of published adventures when I read them, I can't keep them moving and/or together when I'm running, and I actively hate playing them if a DM insists, so I need to do homebrew if I'm going to run. My guess is someone running published adventures/adventure paths has roughly nothing in common with that.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> A more useful definition of gatekeeping is based on intent. If I do my best to help a newbie, I am not gatekeeping, irrespective of whether I was actually helpful. If I tried to hinder or drive away the newbie I am gatekeeping, regardless of whether or not I am successful.




I think it's useful to note the difference between gatekeeping and barriers.  As you say, gatekeeping is a deliberate action.  If I refuse to allow someone to join me at a game table because I don't like the RPGs they play, I don't think they know enough about the setting, or they smell bad all the time I am gatekeeping.  (Not all gatekeeping is bad.)  Barriers to play might include the costs and availability of materials, access to other players, or difficulty understanding the rules and these aren't typically deliberate efforts to keep others away.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I think it's useful to note the difference between gatekeeping and barriers.  As you say, gatekeeping is a deliberate action.  If I refuse to allow someone to join me at a game table because I don't like the RPGs they play, I don't think they know enough about the setting, or they smell bad all the time I am gatekeeping.  (Not all gatekeeping is bad.)  Barriers to play might include the costs and availability of materials, access to other players, or difficulty understanding the rules and these aren't typically deliberate efforts to keep others away.



I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping.  Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry.  This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional.  If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.

And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now.  It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is.  Here's an example:  a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game.  It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM.  The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple.  IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM.  We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM.  We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like.  But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM.  I can be a GM at a much lower level of output.  So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM.  And, that's gatekeeping.  Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club.  Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.

To take some examples from responses to me, it's been said that adjudicating actions is harder than declaring them.  But, most of the list are almost always trivial -- and should have been part of the player's job to make sure remain trivial because the player has the duty to engage with the fiction.  The "hardest" parts of the job are picking a DC, which, again, if you use the DMG advice, is a question of "is this task easy, moderate, or hard?"  This isn't hard.  The numerated list presented mostly trivial steps in an attempt to make the process look more complicated that it actually is, in practice.  I think a lot of that list comes from the unstated belief that it's the GM's job to police the players -- that the players will not be acting in a disciplined fashion and will present action declarations that require extra work on the GM's part to vet and untangle from abuse.  But, that's a player problem, not a GM duty.  

And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players.  You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly.  But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty.  I, personally, have a cleric in the group I run for and I couldn't tell you at all how Turn Undead works, or what things that PC has that might interact with that.  I know she can Turn Undead, but that's it, and I really don't think about it at all.  If it comes up in a session, like it did a few months ago, I'm often surprised, because I forgot about it.  My player knows her rules, and follows them, and I don't have to think about it at all.  If a question comes up, I'll tell the player to read the rule and report back while I move on to other things.  OR, I'll make a ruling, and we'll address it later.  I don't need to know these rules to run a game -- those rules are player facing, it's their job to know them and apply them through their action declarations.  I'm there to frame the scenes and adjudicate the actions.  Those rules I know very well.  Luckily for me, even in 5e, they're pretty straightforward.  

The worst part of running D&D is running the monsters, especially if they have a ton of special abilities.  But, again, as GM, I pick the monsters, so that's entirely under my control as GM as to how much difficulty I add to myself.  Same with campaign design, or adventure design.  I pick my workload.  If I ever feel like my players are dictating my workload, it's time to have a serious discussion with the group.  If players are just there to do the minimum effort show up and toss dice and be taught/led through the rules by me, or constantly declare actions that require my vetting, we have a problem, and it's not that GMing is hard.  

Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this.  Nope.  That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping.  Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry.  This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional.  If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.




Not all barriers are artificial, though. If nothing else, there's a good case to be made that being a GM is more expensive than being a player, at least if the game's publishers follow the D&D model and publish a separate book for GMs. Sure, that's something like a business decision, and you'll see that as natural as you see any other business decision; you'll probably describe this as "systemic," which ... sure, but I"m not sure whether it needs to be addressed as a gatekeeping issue. There's something similar if you're trying to introduce the people at your table to a new game; chances you're the one who bought it (and there's probably a correlation between that and wanting to play/run it); if you're introducing a game you absolutely need to know the rules, and I'd say the probability that you know the rues better than the players approaches 1.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now.  It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is.  Here's an example:  a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game.  It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM.  The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple.  IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM.  We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM.  We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like.  But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM.  I can be a GM at a much lower level of output.  So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM.  And, that's gatekeeping.  Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club.  Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.




I'll admit that your hypothetical very smol dungeon wouldn't satisfy me as a player or a DM, but that doesn't mean I think a table that enjoys it is Doing It Wrong. My expectations for my game aren't any more relevant to your game than you allow them to be, really.



Ovinomancer said:


> To take some examples from responses to me, it's been said that adjudicating actions is harder than declaring them.  But, most of the list are almost always trivial -- and should have been part of the player's job to make sure remain trivial because the player has the duty to engage with the fiction.  The "hardest" parts of the job are picking a DC, which, again, if you use the DMG advice, is a question of "is this task easy, moderate, or hard?"  This isn't hard.  The numerated list presented mostly trivial steps in an attempt to make the process look more complicated that it actually is, in practice.  I think a lot of that list comes from the unstated belief that it's the GM's job to police the players -- that the players will not be acting in a disciplined fashion and will present action declarations that require extra work on the GM's part to vet and untangle from abuse.  But, that's a player problem, not a GM duty.




Both of the campaigns I'm running have pretty good tables, but even the excellent players there make mistakes.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players.  You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly.  But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty.  I, personally, have a cleric in the group I run for and I couldn't tell you at all how Turn Undead works, or what things that PC has that might interact with that.  I know she can Turn Undead, but that's it, and I really don't think about it at all.  If it comes up in a session, like it did a few months ago, I'm often surprised, because I forgot about it.  My player knows her rules, and follows them, and I don't have to think about it at all.  If a question comes up, I'll tell the player to read the rule and report back while I move on to other things.  OR, I'll make a ruling, and we'll address it later.  I don't need to know these rules to run a game -- those rules are player facing, it's their job to know them and apply them through their action declarations.  I'm there to frame the scenes and adjudicate the actions.  Those rules I know very well.  Luckily for me, even in 5e, they're pretty straightforward.




Every time a player asks you "Can I [verb]?" they're asking a rules question. They're asking for your judgment. Judgment isn't necessarily hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it easy, either. It's nice when the players know the rules for their own characters, but sometimes situations or odd unexpected interactions arise, and ti's good to have enough of a handle on the rules to be able to handle those.



Ovinomancer said:


> The worst part of running D&D is running the monsters, especially if they have a ton of special abilities.  But, again, as GM, I pick the monsters, so that's entirely under my control as GM as to how much difficulty I add to myself.  Same with campaign design, or adventure design.  I pick my workload.  If I ever feel like my players are dictating my workload, it's time to have a serious discussion with the group.  If players are just there to do the minimum effort show up and toss dice and be taught/led through the rules by me, or constantly declare actions that require my vetting, we have a problem, and it's not that GMing is hard.




Sure, and that's why there's been some discussion about homebrew adventures versus published. Some GMs have the time, energy, and inclination to make their own settings/adventures; others don't. It's another way of choosing your workload. It's absolutely within a GM's rights to take steps to reduce their workload.



Ovinomancer said:


> Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this.  Nope.  That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.




I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping.  Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry.




You're using gatekeeping in a manner that is very much outside the norm.  Almost everyone else uses gatekeeping to mean the deliberate effort of limiting access to something and the way you use it to describe any barrier leads to confusion.  



> This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional.  If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.




You can refer to the structural and system roadblocks as barriers instead of gatekeeping (at least when it's not a deliberate effort to exclude people).  The main books for FFG's Star Wars line retails for $60 and for some people that is a barrier to entry but it's not gatekeeping.  If a young woman asks me if she can join my Edge of the Empire game and I grill her to ascertain her grasp of Star Wars trivia I am gatekeeping.  



> Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this.  Nope.  That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.




The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does.  However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

prabe said:


> Not all barriers are artificial, though. If nothing else, there's a good case to be made that being a GM is more expensive than being a player, at least if the game's publishers follow the D&D model and publish a separate book for GMs. Sure, that's something like a business decision, and you'll see that as natural as you see any other business decision; you'll probably describe this as "systemic," which ... sure, but I"m not sure whether it needs to be addressed as a gatekeeping issue. There's something similar if you're trying to introduce the people at your table to a new game; chances you're the one who bought it (and there's probably a correlation between that and wanting to play/run it); if you're introducing a game you absolutely need to know the rules, and I'd say the probability that you know the rues better than the players approaches 1.



I'd say it is systemic, but may not be a bad thing.  Again, gatekeeping is not always a negative, although it quite often is.  In this case, there's a balancing factor between the cost of printing, change of sale, amount of material to digest, etc., that may justify making the DMG a separate purchase expected of GMs but not of players.  Still an artificial barrier to entry if owning a DMG is expected of being a GM, although a small and justifiable one.  It, by itself, may not rise to gatekeeping, but it does add to the systemic costs of other things that erects the gate.




> I'll admit that your hypothetical very smol dungeon wouldn't satisfy me as a player or a DM, but that doesn't mean I think a table that enjoys it is Doing It Wrong. My expectations for my game aren't any more relevant to your game than you allow them to be, really.




Exactly.  If that person is GMing, then the actual tasks of GMing aren't as hard as presented, but rather our preferences that add the difficulty.



> Both of the campaigns I'm running have pretty good tables, but even the excellent players there make mistakes.



Perfection is not a requirement of any of my positions.  I don't think 'mistakes' attribute to the duties of a GM.  Mistakes tend to cut both ways, and tend to be obvious.




> Every time a player asks you "Can I [verb]?" they're asking a rules question. They're asking for your judgment. Judgment isn't necessarily hard, but I wouldn't necessarily call it easy, either. It's nice when the players know the rules for their own characters, but sometimes situations or odd unexpected interactions arise, and ti's good to have enough of a handle on the rules to be able to handle those.



But, here's the rub, you're choosing to accept those questions.  @iserith has a great read on not playing questions in a game, because it's the player's job to declare actions, not ask questions.  If you accept players asking "can I" to get likelihoods, then that's your choice, not required by the rules.  You could say, "you have to declare an action" and have them then try things in character to find out what they can do.

Now, if they're asking a rules question, as in 'do the rules allow..." then I think it's fair to have them read it and present a case to the table.  You can make a ruling if there's a legitimate question.  This isn't any different than if playing Monopoly, though -- it's handled however the social contract sets it up.  If you've set up your social contract that you, the GM, are the sole source, then that's on you.  Having the rulebook say you're the final authority on the rules doesn't mean that you can't delegate, or that you must know the rules.  Heck, if you make stuff up, that's by the rules, right?  How much easier can you get than 'make stuff up?'




> Sure, and that's why there's been some discussion about homebrew adventures versus published. Some GMs have the time, energy, and inclination to make their own settings/adventures; others don't. It's another way of choosing your workload. It's absolutely within a GM's rights to take steps to reduce their workload.



Which means that the difficulty of what material is run is a choice by the GM, and not a requirement?  Rhetorical, my answer is 'yes.'



> I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.



I think GMing is different from playing, and is a different challenge, but I'm not convinced it's "hard".  "Harder" is, well, not terribly helpful, because that may mean a little bit harder or lots harder and opinions in this thread have differed.  I think the players actually have more rules to follow than the GM.  Being the final authority doesn't mean more work, it just means you have control over it.  However much work you want to put into that control is up to you -- you can farm it out to the table or a specific player, you can make stuff up on the fly, you can study and consider and write up papers... lots of options, but all up to the GM.  If we're including the things that we choose to pick up as adding to the core difficulty of the task, then I think we're making a error.  But, it's the collection of theses we pick up on our own and attribute to the actual task that build the myth that GMing is hard work and players don't have much to do, and so on that creates a systemic and structural, but unintentional, barrier to entry to the GM club.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> You're using gatekeeping in a manner that is very much outside the norm.  Almost everyone else uses gatekeeping to mean the deliberate effort of limiting access to something and the way you use it to describe any barrier leads to confusion.



I don't use it to describe any barrier.  I use it to describe _unnecessary _barriers to entry.  Most of the examples given of how GMing is hard are actually _unnecessary _to the task of GMing.





> You can refer to the structural and system roadblocks as barriers instead of gatekeeping (at least when it's not a deliberate effort to exclude people).  The main books for FFG's Star Wars line retails for $60 and for some people that is a barrier to entry but it's not gatekeeping.  If a young woman asks me if she can join my Edge of the Empire game and I grill her to ascertain her grasp of Star Wars trivia I am gatekeeping.



Sure, but I'm not talking about the cost of books.



> The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does.  However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.



This is an assumption, one that removes the effort from one group and adds to to another for no good reason other than tradition.  Players have many responsibilities, it's just that the general zeitgeist is to not expect much from a player or hold them to account.  The GM's job is vastly simpler if you remove the assumption that they have to police or entertain the players all on their lonesome.  This is one of those persistent ideas that adds to the unnecessary burden of the GM and helps prevent entry.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Perfection is not a requirement of any of my positions.  I don't think 'mistakes' attribute to the duties of a GM.  Mistakes tend to cut both ways, and tend to be obvious.




Sure, GMs make mistakes. I've made some (and I've apologized to the tables for them). I think a GM's mistake has a higher likelihood of blowing up a session or even a campaign than a player's decision (short of a decision by the players to attempt something impossible that inevitably TPKs). I guess it seems in my experience as though it works better socially if the GM is the one enforcing the game rules, to keep the players all roughly equal with each other (rather than having one quarterbacking or something).




Ovinomancer said:


> But, here's the rub, you're choosing to accept those questions.  @iserith has a great read on not playing questions in a game, because it's the player's job to declare actions, not ask questions.  If you accept players asking "can I" to get likelihoods, then that's your choice, not required by the rules.  You could say, "you have to declare an action" and have them then try things in character to find out what they can do.
> 
> Now, if they're asking a rules question, as in 'do the rules allow..." then I think it's fair to have them read it and present a case to the table.  You can make a ruling if there's a legitimate question.  This isn't any different than if playing Monopoly, though -- it's handled however the social contract sets it up.  If you've set up your social contract that you, the GM, are the sole source, then that's on you.  Having the rulebook say you're the final authority on the rules doesn't mean that you can't delegate, or that you must know the rules.  Heck, if you make stuff up, that's by the rules, right?  How much easier can you get than 'make stuff up?'




Here's the thing. The characters have a better understanding of the situation than the players do. I find that when a player is asking "Can I [do the thing]?" they're really asking how it would be implemented in the rules, as a way to know if it's worth trying. If I asked the first question and got slightly-smug "You can try ..." I'd ask how the GM intended to make the rules work, and if the GM didn't answer I probably wouldn't do that thing. I don't think that's the kind of play I want at my table. You want to do the thing, your character should have a good sense of whether they can do the thing, here's how I'm likely to apply the rules, see if you think your character should try to do the thing. Players being blindsided because the GM won't explain the rules as applied doesn't sound like good GMing to me, so it can't really be what you're advocating (though I think the implication is there).

And passing rules questions to the table seems like a way to bog a sessin down in half an hour of Rules Court. Hard pass.




Ovinomancer said:


> Which means that the difficulty of what material is run is a choice by the GM, and not a requirement?  Rhetorical, my answer is 'yes.'




Sure. I personally find running published adventures to be harder than homebrewing, so I guess I'm choosing my own easier path.




Ovinomancer said:


> I think GMing is different from playing, and is a different challenge, but I'm not convinced it's "hard".  "Harder" is, well, not terribly helpful, because that may mean a little bit harder or lots harder and opinions in this thread have differed.  I think the players actually have more rules to follow than the GM.  Being the final authority doesn't mean more work, it just means you have control over it.  However much work you want to put into that control is up to you -- you can farm it out to the table or a specific player, you can make stuff up on the fly, you can study and consider and write up papers... lots of options, but all up to the GM.  If we're including the things that we choose to pick up as adding to the core difficulty of the task, then I think we're making a error.  But, it's the collection of theses we pick up on our own and attribute to the actual task that build the myth that GMing is hard work and players don't have much to do, and so on that creates a systemic and structural, but unintentional, barrier to entry to the GM club.




Maybe consider "hard" to mean some combination of "requires more time," "requires more effort," and "requires more bandwidth."

As a side note, it seems to me as though any of the suggestions for easing the GM's in-session workload (passing things off to the players) really seem more likely to slow the game down than anything else. Maybe keeping the session moving isn't everyone's top priority, but it's pretty close to mine.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

prabe said:


> Sure, GMs make mistakes. I've made some (and I've apologized to the tables for them). I think a GM's mistake has a higher likelihood of blowing up a session or even a campaign than a player's decision (short of a decision by the players to attempt something impossible that inevitably TPKs). I guess it seems in my experience as though it works better socially if the GM is the one enforcing the game rules, to keep the players all roughly equal with each other (rather than having one quarterbacking or something).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I wasn't clear, here.  If a player suggests an action, and you provide the difficulty, then the player should be able to change their mind, largely for tge reasons you note.  This is off topic, though, and I'd rather not divert this thread into a discussion of GM techiques.  Happy to discuss elsewhere.

I will leave the idea that I assume good faith in play.  Anything breaks when used in bad faith.  I'm not out to "gotcha" players.




> Sure. I personally find running published adventures to be harder than homebrewing, so I guess I'm choosing my own easier path.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, it's mostly what we choose to shoulder.  Personally, I work much harder than my players, but it's all in prep.  I play on a VTT these days, and the ability to have beat bells and whistles is something I like, so I spend way too much time on maps and lighting and tokens.  I also homebrew monsters a lot.  But, thise are my choices.  I don't have to.  If we theater-of-the-mind, I'd spend less time in prep that two of my players do reviewing their PCs for each session.  My prep is about 5 minutes thinking of and jotting quick notes on prep, and 2 hours of building maps/monsters.  Totally my call.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2020)

aco175 said:


> To expand on my OP after all this good discussion; is there a difference in DMs that homebrew over run a published adventure?  Does this affect DMs being or thinking they are the most important.




I think it can, but does not always do so. I know when I was younger, I crafted my own home brew world and our games took place in that setting, and I clung to the elements of that setting fiercely. I had a very specific idea of what I wanted the setting to be, and allowed for very little player input. In that sense, I was certainly saying that my take on the game was more important than the players'.

Over time, I've drastically loosened such expectations. I now want the setting to be a shared world, crafted by all participants. I've found that to be far more rewarding these days, and I find that it helps engage players in meaningful ways that my special homebrew world never did.



aco175 said:


> I guess I'm not sure is some let hubris in when they think that their game is the end all.  I tend to think that when I used to homebrew my whole world I felt I needed to control some things and maybe some of that led me to think I was more 'right' in making the rules and being important.  It may also have been that I was younger and some of that may have crept in.
> 
> Today we play with FR and I generally make my own adventures but use the shell they provide.  While I do not think I have some of the same attitudes, I wonder if others have .




I'm sure that this will vary from table to table, and that there would be plenty of examples of homebrew DMs who are perfectly fine with player input, and who don't rule their setting like a tyrant. But I certainly can see how creating a setting would make it MY WORLD and using one like Forgotten Realms is very clearly different.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think GMing is different from playing, in ways that tend to make it more difficult (or at least more complex, which isn't exactly the same thing). The GM is, in many games, the final authority on the rules for that table, which implies an expectation to at least know the indices, if not the entire books. While the players are usually responsible for one character each (sometimes players run multiple characters), the GM is responsible for the world. Even in a published adventure, the GM needs to keep straight what is going on offstage, and know what a given NPC's motivations are, and where things are in the neighborhood and in the world. Some people will find the complexity more daunting than others, some will find it more difficult than others.




I think that knowing that you can craft a ruling in the moment instead of knowing all the intricacies of rules is key to success of a GM. And in 5E D&D, in particular, this is something that is brought up often. It's one of the big things that the DM should try and remember above all other things. Knowing this approach and relying on static elements like Character stats and DCs will get you pretty far as a DM. 

I agree with you that the GM typically has more to do than a player. This is why I advocate offloading some of the non-DM-essential tasks to others.



MGibster said:


> The players do not typically have the same level of responsibility for the game as the GM does.  However, I would certainly agree the players do have some responsibility and they're certainly important.




I understand the sentiment, but I think that framing it this way creates a dichotomy that's unnecessary. The role of player and GM are equally important, as the game cannot occur without either (except in games that have been crafted with that in mind, like Fiasco or similar games). The fact that there's almost always more than one player and almost always only one GM is what shifts that balance a bit. 

Related, having a game with the best GM ever might still fall flat if the players are simply going through the motions and not bringing any creativity or energy to the game. Flipping that, all the energy and creativity in the world on the part of the players can only do so much if the GM is simply going through the motions.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I understand the sentiment, but I think that framing it this way creates a dichotomy that's unnecessary. The role of player and GM are equally important, as the game cannot occur without either (except in games that have been crafted with that in mind, like Fiasco or similar games).




If I have a session where one player is unable to make it because of outside obligations we typically still play.  If I can’t make it the session is cancelled. Yes, players are important.  But the GM is the only person at the table whose absence guarantees the game does not get played.  He or she is the lynchpin.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 20, 2020)

aco175 said:


> I guess I'm not sure is some let hubris in when they think that their game is the end all.  I tend to think that when I used to homebrew my whole world I felt I needed to control some things and maybe some of that led me to think I was more 'right' in making the rules and being important.  It may also have been that I was younger and some of that may have crept in.
> 
> Today we play with FR and I generally make my own adventures but use the shell they provide.  While I do not think I have some of the same attitudes, I wonder if others have .



I suspect we'd find DMs who succumb to ego regardless of whether they're running modules or homebrew. I don't think bad DMing is restricted to one over the other.

When you homebrew, sure, in a sense you are more right because you created that world and decided what went into it. You presumably know it better than anyone. Even if the DM allows a player to contribute to the world (in the sense of creating things related to their backstory) it's still going to typically need to be approved by the DM. When you homebrew you typically have full authority of the setting, whereas if you run a published setting you share some authority with the established canon. Unless you change it, but if you don't make the players aware of such changes it can lead to serious problems when the players make assumptions based on information their characters should know, but it turns out the DM changed that fact without informing them and that therefore those assumptions were wrong. Not impossible to avoid, but certainly a potential pitfall.

Of course, none of that means that the DM should prioritize their own fun ahead of that of the players. Being the authority doesn't make you more 'important' in the truest sense. It just makes you the authority.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is an assumption, one that removes the effort from one group and adds to to another for no good reason other than tradition.  Players have many responsibilities, it's just that the general zeitgeist is to not expect much from a player or hold them to account.  The GM's job is vastly simpler if you remove the assumption that they have to police or entertain the players all on their lonesome.  This is one of those persistent ideas that adds to the unnecessary burden of the GM and helps prevent entry.




It’s not an assumption. I’m basing my opinion on my experience, what I’ve heard from other people, and the many game books I’ve read. I can accept that you may disagree with my opinions but please do not refer to them as assumptions. 

But I think we’re too far apart on this to have a meaningful dialogue.  We can’t even agree on the definitions of words and concepts.  And if we can’t agree on that there’s nowhere to go.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I suspect we'd find DMs who succumb to ego regardless of whether they're running modules or homebrew. I don't think bad DMing is restricted to one over the other.




Agreed. I do kinda wonder if the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into play, here, though, in that maybe bad DMs tend to be more hubristic.



Fanaelialae said:


> When you homebrew, sure, in a sense you are more right because you created that world and decided what went into it. You presumably know it better than anyone. Even if the DM allows a player to contribute to the world (in the sense of creating things related to their backstory) it's still going to typically need to be approved by the DM. When you homebrew you typically have full authority of the setting, whereas if you run a published setting you share some authority with the established canon.




Not having much interest in canon, and not wanting to argue about it if I change something (or get it wrong) are reasons I homebrew my setting. Not the top reasons, but reasons.



Fanaelialae said:


> Of course, none of that means that the DM should prioritize their own fun ahead of that of the players. Being the authority doesn't make you more 'important' in the truest sense. It just makes you the authority.




Agreed. Everyone at the table should want everyone at the table to have fun. I do find it interesting how many rules options and suggestions for DMing that seem to say to the DM: "Have less fun." The things I do that I don't pass to the players (I run inits myself, and all NPCs, and I write the setting and adventures) I do because they are *fun*.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Maybe it would be more helpful to talk about roles rather than people. There are often several players and usually only one GM, and the numbers seem to be the focus for a lot of the discussion. The numbers aren't a index of importance though, but rather a reflection of the game system. Different game systems also allocate responsibility for defining the diagetic frame very differently. The role of the GM in a game like Houses of the Blooded, for example, is very different than the role of the DM in D&D. Beyond that, the role and authority of the DM varies significantly from table to table even within that single game system. 

There is also a historical spectrum at work here - D&D is an old game, and some people play it using old the old school model and some people play it using a newer model to distribute authority.. Newer games tend to describe the role of GM a little differently, and many of them talk about 'players' as a collective noun that includes the GM, a fact that usually directly indexes a very different sort of power distribution and thus a different model of authority over the diagetic frame. Even in a conversation just about D&D we need to account for a wide range of play styles and table contracts.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> It’s not an assumption. I’m basing my opinion on my experience, what I’ve heard from other people, and the many game books I’ve read. I can accept that you may disagree with my opinions but please do not refer to them as assumptions.
> 
> But I think we’re too far apart on this to have a meaningful dialogue.  We can’t even agree on the definitions of words and concepts.  And if we can’t agree on that there’s nowhere to go.



Yeah, I'm confused about the pushback on assumption, as there's nothing to say that assumptions can't be based on experience or even that assumptions are bad things.  After all, most of our daily lives operate around assumptions.  If you prefer opinion, that's fine, the word replacement doesn't change my argument at all.  But, if you feel you can't engage the ideas because of the words used, I can't gainsay you on that.  Happy gaming!


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Maybe it would be more helpful to talk about roles rather than people. There are often several players and usually only one GM, and the numbers seem to be the focus for a lot of the discussion. The numbers aren't a index of importance though, but rather a reflection of the game system. Different game systems also allocate responsibility for defining the diagetic frame very differently. The role of the GM in a game like Houses of the Blooded, for example, is very different than the role of the DM in D&D. Beyond that, the role and authority of the DM varies significantly from table to table even within that single game system.




The numbers can definitely influence and inform importance.  If my game cannot be played absent a GM but can be played absent a player (even if the reason is numbers) the GM role is of greater significance or importance than the role of player.  If it's easier to find players than it is to find a GM ( again, even if the reason is... numbers)  the GM role is of more significance or importance.  In other words while not the only factor that determines or contributes to the role of GM being more important it certainly is a (major??) factor.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> If I have a session where one player is unable to make it because of outside obligations we typically still play.  If I can’t make it the session is cancelled. Yes, players are important.  But the GM is the only person at the table whose absence guarantees the game does not get played.  He or she is the lynchpin.




Right, but then that's about that specific game. In that case, sure, that makes sense. You need a GM and at least one player for sure. Or, in the case of GM-less games, then at least two participants.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Imaro said:


> The numbers can definitely influence and inform importance.  If my game cannot be played absent a GM but can be played absent a player (even if the reason is numbers) the GM role is of greater significance or importance than the role of player.



The operative phrase there is _your_ game. I think you've fairly described a type of game for sure. D&D and other games that still show pretty heavy simulationist roots tend to require a lot of prep and a pretty high degree of information control/mastery. That description doesn't hold for all RPGs though.



Imaro said:


> If it's easier to find players than it is to find a GM ( again, even if the reason is... numbers)  the GM role is of more significance or importance.  In other words while not the only factor that determines or contributes to the role of GM being more important it certainly is a (major??) factor.



I don't know how useful it is to rely on anecdotal experience for a general description. I've always found it hard to find players that are 'right' for the kind of game I want to run, but that doesn't inform my opinion of 'importance'. Finding players generally isn't hard of course, and even easier the more common the game you're looking for players for, but finding players isn't the same as finding the right players. So, again, you describes a certain subset of D&D style game well, but fall short when that description is pressed onto a wider selection of samples. I guess it depends on what you're trying to define. We're in the General Forums, so I was trying to spread a wider net than just D&D and games specifically like it.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The operative phrase there is _your_ game. I think you've fairly described a type of game for sure. D&D and other games that still show pretty heavy simulationist roots tend to require a lot of prep and a pretty high degree of information control/mastery. That description doesn't hold for all RPGs though.




I'm not talking about prep or information control/mastery. I'm speaking to numbers



Fenris-77 said:


> I don't know how useful it is to rely on anecdotal experience for a general description. I've always found it hard to find players that are 'right' for the kind of game I want to run, but that doesn't inform my opinion of 'importance'. Finding players generally isn't hard of course, and even easier the more common the game you're looking for players for, but finding players isn't the same as finding the right players. So, again, you describes a certain subset of D&D style game well, but fall short when that description is pressed onto a wider selection of samples. I guess it depends on what you're trying to define. We're in the General Forums, so I was trying to spread a wider net than just D&D and games specifically like it.




I don't know how useful it is framing this discussion and roles in terms of games the vast majority of those in the hobby have never and will never play.  BitD may be easier to run compared to D&D and yet D&D still produces magnitudes more people willing to run it than Blades does.

EDIT: In other words why are we entertaining the outliers (The sum of which together probably don't make up 5-10% of the player/GM base) as some sort of rebuttal or baseline for discussion?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

If you want to define the importance of the DM in a D&D game that's fine, I'm not forcing you. But D&D isn't all of roleplaying, regardless of what's popular or not. I'm not talking about niche games either - stuff like BitD, PbtA more generally, Dresden - these are all popular and award winning games. 

Also, numbers don't define importance, the system defines numbers, and the game system sets the initial parameters for the division of authority at the table, along with the social contract governing that table. You example only covers  one slice of the possibilities there, and no argument from popularity changes that.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, I'm confused about the pushback on assumption, as there's nothing to say that assumptions can't be based on experience or even that assumptions are bad things.




Again, you’re using words in a manner that is isn’t typical.  An assumption is accepting something as truth without evidence.  I’ve provided at least one concrete reason why the GM is the most important person at the table.  It wasn’t an assumption on my part.




> But, if you feel you can't engage the ideas because of the words used, I can't gainsay you on that.  Happy gaming!




Word choice is an important part of communication.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> If you want to define the importance of the DM in a D&D game that's fine, I'm not forcing you. But D&D isn't all of roleplaying, regardless of what's popular or not. I'm not talking about niche games either - stuff like BitD, PbtA more generally, Dresden - these are all popular and award winning games.




Those are niche games...



Fenris-77 said:


> Also, numbers don't define importance, the system defines numbers, and the game system sets the initial parameters for the division of authority at the table, along with the social contract governing that table. You example only covers  one slice of the possibilities there, and no argument from popularity changes that.




I feel like those beating this drum are akin to someone claiming that everything we know and use to classify a mammal is only a slice of the possibilities because... platypus.

There has to be a baseline in any discussion and sorry but D&D is the baseline for the hobby through sheer dominance.  It's great to note these exceptions but ultimately if 99% of the hobby goes one way it's probably alot more relevant to examine that and use it as your baseline vs claiming a game that accounts for 1% or less of the hobby's playerbase means that baseline is faulty.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Oookay. You've made it clear where you're at with the hobby. Cool. You can continue defining role playing just in terms of D&D if that's what gives you feels. Hyperbole isn't a great tool when it's that obvious though, just a parting rhetorical gift from me to you.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Oookay. You've made it clear where you're at with the hobby. Cool. You can continue defining role playing just in terms of D&D if that's what gives you feels. Hyperbole isn't a great tool when it's that obvious though, just a parting rhetorical gift from me to you.




Nope as I stated earlier I'm playing BitD right now but if someone asked me to explain or give an example of how a roleplaying game works... I'm going to lean on more popular fare for my explanation because it makes more sense.... In other words I just realize we've been going in circles because there's almost always an exception to anything.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

A whole range of different games isn't 'an exception', and D&D, popular as it is, isn't 'the rule'. I don't suspect we're going to agree though, and that's fine.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Again, you’re using words in a manner that is isn’t typical.  An assumption is accepting something as truth without evidence.  I’ve provided at least one concrete reason why the GM is the most important person at the table.  It wasn’t an assumption on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assumption is treating simething as if true without proof, not withoit evidence.  Your definition equates assumption to wild guess, which isn't true as assumptions are often built on incomplete evidence and function quite nicely everyday.  For instance, one assumes that crossing traffic is stopped when your light is green.  We have no evidence this will remain true unless we observe crossing traffic through the entire light, at which point we've lost our opportunity to go.  It's also a reasonable assumption, in that we.have lots of prior evidence that it most often true, and maybe immediate evidence that traffic we can see has, indeed, stopped.  But, no proof until the light is done or we cross.  This occurres every day among myriad assumptions that are evidence or experience based.

I mean, Google is right there, if you don't believe me.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think a lot of that list comes from the unstated belief that it's the GM's job to police the players -- that the players will not be acting in a disciplined fashion and will present action declarations that require extra work on the GM's part to vet and untangle from abuse.  But, that's a player problem, not a GM duty.



Player problem, or player mandate?

A player is there to advocate for his/her PC; part of that advocation naturally includes trying to push the borders of the rules in favour of said PC.  It's the GM's duty to make sure the rule borders remain intact - the GM is among other things a referee.



> And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players.  You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly.  But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty.



See above. 



> I, personally, have a cleric in the group I run for and I couldn't tell you at all how Turn Undead works, or what things that PC has that might interact with that.  I know she can Turn Undead, but that's it, and I really don't think about it at all.  If it comes up in a session, like it did a few months ago, I'm often surprised, because I forgot about it.  My player knows her rules, and follows them, and I don't have to think about it at all.



Nice in theory, and if it works in practice for you all's good.  But in many situations this would or could eventually lead to trouble via the player misinterpreting a rule in such a way as to favour the PC; and the GM has to be on top of this.



> If a question comes up, I'll tell the player to read the rule and report back while I move on to other things.  OR, I'll make a ruling, and we'll address it later.  I don't need to know these rules to run a game -- those rules are player facing, it's their job to know them and apply them through their action declarations.  I'm there to frame the scenes and adjudicate the actions.  Those rules I know very well.  Luckily for me, even in 5e, they're pretty straightforward.



This comes down to personal preference: I know as a player the fewer player-facing rules and mechanics I have to deal with the better I like it.



> The worst part of running D&D is running the monsters, especially if they have a ton of special abilities.  But, again, as GM, I pick the monsters, so that's entirely under my control as GM as to how much difficulty I add to myself.  Same with campaign design, or adventure design.  I pick my workload.  If I ever feel like my players are dictating my workload, it's time to have a serious discussion with the group.  If players are just there to do the minimum effort show up and toss dice and be taught/led through the rules by me, or constantly declare actions that require my vetting, we have a problem, and it's not that GMing is hard.



Campaign's gonna get mighty boring if all they ever fight are Orcs and Goblins because the GM doesn't want to add more difficulty to his/her workload by pulling out a greater variety of foes.

And part of being a good player is to declare actions that force the GM to do some vetting: it's called thinking outside the box.



> Part of the issue in this thread is the assumption that players have very little responsibility to the game and that it's the GM's job to compensate for this.  Nope.  That's on you if your take that burden up, it's not a task inherent to GMing.



Players have a responsibility to the game as regards their PC(s), including the required bookkeeping, coming up with characterizations, etc., and of finding ways to interact with the setting.

The GM's responsibility is to give them a setting to play in and, at most tables, some things to do there.  Part of the setting piece is the rules that govern said setting, while most of the things-to-do piece usually consists of designing (homebrew) or obtaining and learning (published) adventures.  IMO these responsibilities considerably outweigh those of the players; though fulfillment of both sets is required in order for the game to function.

All involved have a responsibility to show up to the games and not be asshats.  And bring beer.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> If you want to define the importance of the DM in a D&D game that's fine, I'm not forcing you. But D&D isn't all of roleplaying



No; but it's most of it, which means if discussions like these don't largely revolve around it they're not much use for the vast majority in the hobby.


----------



## iserith (Feb 20, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree that this is a useful definition of gatekeeping.  Gatekeeping is, simply put, the erection of artificial barriers to entry.  This may be intentional, which is often seen as more egregious if based on extraneous or unnecessary criteria, but it can also be unintentional.  If you require intentionality, you're going to miss a lot of structural and systemic gatekeeping that grows up not through intentional action, but emergent or unforeseen consequences of non-intentional actions that combine to create artificial barriers to entry.
> 
> And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now.  It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is.  Here's an example:  a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game.  It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM.  The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple.  IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM.  We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM.  We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like.  But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM.  I can be a GM at a much lower level of output.  So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM.  And, that's gatekeeping.  Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club.  Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.
> 
> ...




Late to the discussion and I don't have much to contribute except to say that this post I quoted above couldn't be more true in my view and should be framed and put on the wall of every DM's gaming area with the headline "Get Over Yourself."

I would have suggested it go in the DMG, but nobody reads it, especially not experienced DMs.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Sure, because D&D is such a paragon of TTRPG brilliance right? Oh wait, despite its popularity it's still a game with significant holes. Where could we possibly turn for a model of how to do some of these things differently? Where could we find models written by people familiar with D&D who wanted something different and went out and wrote that?  Hmm.....

Anyway, the argument from popularity sucks. It's not helpful. Yes, lots of us love D&D. I love D&D. Saying that talking about any RPG but D&D is pointless because D&D is is so popular is some bonkers nonsense.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, because D&D is such a paragon of TTRPG brilliance right? Oh wait, despite its popularity it's still a game with significant holes. Where could we possibly turn for a model of how to do some of these things differently? Where could we find models written by people familiar with D&D who wanted something different and went out and wrote that?  Hmm.....
> 
> Anyway, the argument from popularity sucks. It's not helpful. Yes, lots of us love D&D. I love D&D. *Saying that talking about any RPG but D&D is pointless because D&D is is so popular is some bonkers nonsense.*




Good thing no one in this thread has said this.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Good thing no one in this thread has said this.



Yeah, good thing. It would be pretty wacky if someone said that only D&D is relevant to a discussion about role playing because it's so popular. _Reeaaallllyyy_ wacky. It would be especially odd on an internet forum where a great number of the regular participants do play and are quite familiar with those other games. So, yeah, good thing. Whew.


Imaro said:


> Those are niche games...
> 
> I feel like those beating this drum are akin to someone claiming that everything we know and use to classify a mammal is only a slice of the possibilities because... platypus.
> 
> There has to be a baseline in any discussion and sorry but D&D is the baseline for the hobby through sheer dominance.  It's great to note these exceptions but ultimately if *99% of the hobby goes one way it's probably alot more relevant to examine that* and use it as your baseline vs claiming a game that accounts for 1% or less of the hobby's playerbase means that baseline is faulty.





Lanefan said:


> *No; but it's most of it, which means if discussions like these don't largely revolve around it they're not much use for the vast majority in the hobby.*


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, good thing. It would be pretty wacky if someone said that only D&D is relevant to a discussion about role playing because it's so popular. _Reeaaallllyyy_ wacky. It would be especially odd on an internet forum where a great number of the regular participants do play and are quite familiar with those other games. So, yeah, good thing. Whew.




Yep stand by that statement that the largest piece is the most relevant and I agree that it should LARGELY... not EXCLUSIVELY revolve around the most popular game/modes of GM'ing and playing.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

'Largely' enough to casually dismiss talking about anything else as irrelevant. _Platypus_ was the word, right? Ok then.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 20, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> 'Largely' enough to casually dismiss talking about anything else as irrelevant. _Platypus_ was the word, right? Ok then.




Not irrelevant but certainly being overly stressed as a solution to the problem of difficulty GM'ing in a traditional playstyle when it's instead a preference for a different playstyle. 

In other words improv as opposed to planning sessions out isn't a solution to making running a game easier unless I prefer improv/am good at improv, don't have anxiety, can think quickly on my feet and it won't degrade the quality of my game for my players.  It's not solving the problem in the context of the game most people are running/playing (which is traditional D&D)... it's basically stating go play a different game... which yes IMO isn't all that helpful for the vast majority of people trying to come up with an easier solution.  

EDIT: If anything this is the solution for people who don't like D&D not those who enjoy D&D and want to have an easier time running it.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2020)

What are we talking about again?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2020)

MGibster said:


> What are we talking about again?



Whether or not the DM deserves a beer, I think.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 20, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Whether or not the DM deserves a beer, I think.




That and who to try to recruit first, if you want to play in a game rather than run.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 20, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Not irrelevant but certainly being overly stressed as a solution to the problem of difficulty GM'ing in a traditional playstyle when it's instead a preference for a different playstyle.
> 
> In other words improv as opposed to planning sessions out isn't a solution to making running a game easier unless I prefer improv/am good at improv, don't have anxiety, can think quickly on my feet and it won't degrade the quality of my game for my players.  It's not solving the problem in the context of the game most people are running/playing (which is traditional D&D)... it's basically stating go play a different game... which yes IMO isn't all that helpful for the vast majority of people trying to come up with an easier solution.
> 
> EDIT: If anything this is the solution for people who don't like D&D not those who enjoy D&D and want to have an easier time running it.



This is actually a really interesting response. This was the topic of several large threads recently and the consensus here seemed to be that there was no consensus on what a 'traditional playstyle' was. The opinions seemed pretty entrenched either firmly in the sandbox, or in opposition to the sanbox as the 'one true way'. I'm probably not being fair to either side there, but you get the drift.  When you say 'traditional playstyle', what are you actually indexing?

As to your second point, I have played and am familiar with many, _many_, different RPGs. There are a bunch of non-D&D games that I love. That said, I probably spend more time mining them for ideas to port into D&D to fix problem X or Y than I do playing them. That's mostly because where I Iive I don't have much (any) choice about players, and D&D is what fits. So I hack bits and pieces off the other games I really like and bolt them on to D&D in ways that I think are interesting. That's why those games are relevant even to people who only play D&D. Everyone (many people?)  eventually get tired of the current D&D edition's take on X and wants something different. Not a different system, just some hacks or homebrew solutions to those little rough spots in the rules that keep catching your attention.

And yeah, this includes everything from playstyle down to little bitty rules hacks.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Nope as I stated earlier I'm playing BitD right now but if someone asked me to explain or give an example of how a roleplaying game works... I'm going to lean on more popular fare for my explanation because it makes more sense.... In other words I just realize we've been going in circles because there's almost always an exception to anything.



You've said a few things about how you're currently playing BitD -- that GMing is work intesive for you and that your players haven't had to make large adjustments coming from D&D.  That has me very curious as to what play looks like at your table, because those two statements are very different from my experiences -- or, if I may, how I've understood @hawkeyefan's related experiences.  Since this thread appears well and truly derailed at this point, would you mind presenting a quick overview of how one of your sessions goes?  I'm curious if you're importing some D&Disms into play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

I mean....to anyone not in the know, a bunch of people sitting around a table playing a RPG is synonymous with D&D. 

But does anyone consider people posting here to be people not in the know? 

If the relevant topic hereon ENWorld was film, would we all expect it to be limited to big studio movies and nothing else? Or if it was music, that we’d have to stick to Top 40 fare? 

It’s just silly to expect that or to insist it.

Now, having said that, the OP did make mention of DM rather than GM, so I suppose in this instance, I would expect that to be the default expectation in some ways. But, it’s also in the General RPG Forums, and we’re on page 16...so yeah, other games are gonna come up in discussion.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Anyway, the argument from popularity sucks. It's not helpful. Yes, lots of us love D&D. I love D&D. Saying that talking about any RPG but D&D is pointless because D&D is is so popular is some bonkers nonsense.




Seems persuasive to me.  Why talk about curling when we could be talking about basketball or football?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean....to anyone not in the know, a bunch of people sitting around a table playing a RPG is synonymous with D&D.
> 
> But does anyone consider people posting here to be people not in the know?
> 
> ...




The problem is when the same few keep bringing up the same not-very popular games into nearly every one of these discussions.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 21, 2020)

You mean those same few well designed and award-winning games? By recognized and decorated game designers? Those games? I have no idea why they'd keep coming up. Wacky. 

I'm not even sure which games you mean, a lot of games have come up. Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, Apocalypse World, PbtA, FATE, Dresden, Houses of the Blooded, Blades in the Dark, Fiasco? That's just off the top of my head and they've all been brought up in the last day in one of these threads, and not just by me. Other than maybe Houses of the Blooded (although that is written by John Wick) those are _not_ not-popular games.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> The problem is when the same few keep bringing up the same not-very popular games into nearly every one of these discussions.




It depends on what games you mean. Yes, D&D is the most popular, but that doesn’t mean that the remainder of the hobby is not popular. 

And even so, why is it a problem? If we’re going to look at RPGs overall, we have to look at more than one. I’m glad when people bring up games I’m not familiar with...it’s one of the ways I learn about new games.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2020)

Yes but you're an idiot if you let it go to your head.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 21, 2020)

I think that RPGs that aren't D&D are certainly pertinent to the discussion. At least some new GMs will enter the hobby through those game.

That said, it's important to recognize that the majority of people are introduced to TTRPGs through D&D, so you can't expect the majority of new DMs to have exposure to the techniques in those games. And while many of those games have interesting and useful approaches, adding them to D&D is not necessarily straight forward. 

4e tried it, and while IMO it was probably the most newbie friendly version of D&D that we've ever had, it also got enormous pushback for "not being D&D". Though I disagree with that last sentiment, I don't believe it stemmed from people wanting the barrier of entry to the hobby to be high. I think those people just didn't care for the game, at least not in the sense of D&D, in large part because it took risks in incorporating different techniques than prior editions.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> And, the "hard" in GMing is largely systemic, now.  It's the accretion of expectation that's been built up around what being a GM is.  Here's an example:  a three room dungeon with 3 encounters with 2 goblins each is a D&D game.  It has no fancy bells, no whistles, it's straightforward, and requires very little to GM.  The problem is that, immediately, the response will be all about how this wouldn't satisfy "my" table, or there's more you could do, or that's too simple.  IE, we're going to add our expectations for a game onto the definition of what it means to GM.  We're going to erect artificial barriers to entry through increased expectation of work on the part of the GM, and then codify that as the actual job of the GM.  We're erecting barriers based on the aggregate of both 35+ years of the hobby and our combined personal expectations of what a game looks like.  But, that's not actually part of the necessary tasks of being a GM.  I can be a GM at a much lower level of output.  So, if we're going to classify GMing as "hard" and name the GM as the "most important" person at the table do to the expectations we've assigned, we've created an artificial barrier to entry to being a GM.  And, that's gatekeeping.  Not intentionally -- we're all acting in ways we deem to be reasonable and not intentionally keeping people out -- but still in a way that restricts the membership into the GM club.  Even if you welcome a neophyte GM, if your mentorship is showing them all the hard work they'll have to do, you're gatekeeping even though it's wearing the guise of being helpful.




So I haven't seen anyone here characterize DMing D&D as hard.  We've said it's harder than being a player and this is a fact.  Saying that we are arguing that DMing is hard and then constructing a counter is a classic Strawman.

Take your 3 room dungeon for example.  The DM had to create a dungeon.  The players didn't.  The DM had to come up with the encounters to put into the dungeon.  The players didn't.  The DM has to describe the evironment.  The players don't. The DM has to run 6 goblins, deciding where they move, who they attack and how they attack, if they run, etc.  The players have to worry about 1 PC each.  The DM has to adjudicate all actions the PCs take.  The players adjudicate nothing. 

DMing is not hard.  It is in fact harder than playing.



> To take some examples from responses to me, it's been said that adjudicating actions is harder than declaring them.  But, most of the list are almost always trivial -- and should have been part of the player's job to make sure remain trivial because the player has the duty to engage with the fiction.  The "hardest" parts of the job are picking a DC, which, again, if you use the DMG advice, is a question of "is this task easy, moderate, or hard?"  This isn't hard.




First you have to decide if the outcome is in doubt.  You don't even get to a roll until after the DM completes this step and decides that the outcome is in doubt.  Then the DM needs to figure out if there are any bonuses, penalties, advantage or disadvantage that apply to the roll, and often those things don't come from a player specific ability.  THEN the DM comes up with the DC.  If the action isn't specifically covered by the rules, which happens fairly often in 5e, the DM has to come up with even more in order to adjudicate things.  The DM also needs to figure out if the action in question is going to use the typical stat for the skill, or use an unusual stat.  Afterwards, the DM narrates the result.  The player just declares what he wants to try and do, and hopefully how.



> And, having to be the one that knows the rules best at the table is also part of the assumption that it's the GM's job to police players.  You need to know the rules so that you can make sure the players follow them properly.  But, that's a player problem, again, not a GM required duty.




Not according to the 5e DMG, page 5.  That page gives a very clear example of the DM's job as master of rules including correcting a player error on movement.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> So I haven't seen anyone here characterize DMing D&D as hard.  We've said it's harder than being a player and this is a fact.  Saying that we are arguing that DMing is hard and then constructing a counter is a classic Strawman.
> 
> Take your 3 room dungeon for example.  The DM had to create a dungeon.  The players didn't.  The DM had to come up with the encounters to put into the dungeon.  The players didn't.  The DM has to describe the evironment.  The players don't. The DM has to run 6 goblins, deciding where they move, who they attack and how they attack, if they run, etc.  The players have to worry about 1 PC each.  The DM has to adjudicate all actions the PCs take.  The players adjudicate nothing.
> 
> ...




I’ve seen many people here argue it’s hard.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I’ve seen many people here argue it’s hard.



I haven't, but admittedly I've skipped several posts.  I have seen quote a few people saying it's harder and being accused of saying it's hard. I have seen those people like my posts clarifying that while it's not hard to DM, it is harder than playing.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I haven't, but admittedly I've skipped several posts.  I have seen quote a few people saying it's harder and being accused of saying it's hard. I have seen those people like my posts clarifying that while it's not hard to DM, it is harder than playing.




I think you missed some important early on content.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I think you missed some important early on content.



Perhaps, but if it was really that important, I would think it would have continued to this point.  I think it more likely that people were being misunderstood or stating their positions poorly.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 21, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You've said a few things about how you're currently playing BitD -- that GMing is work intesive for you and that your players haven't had to make large adjustments coming from D&D.  That has me very curious as to what play looks like at your table, because those two statements are very different from my experiences -- or, if I may, how I've understood @hawkeyefan's related experiences.  Since this thread appears well and truly derailed at this point, would you mind presenting a quick overview of how one of your sessions goes?  I'm curious if you're importing some D&Disms into play.




 I probably don't have the time to write up an entire session but if you had specific questions or aspects you want insight into how they played out at my table I'd be happy to provide them... though not sure this specific thread would be the best place to discuss.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 21, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I’ve seen many people here argue it’s hard.




Eh, for the most part the argument has been framed in terms of DM workload vs. Player workload.


----------



## jasper (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Whether or not the DM deserves a beer, I think.



How dare you offer me a beer,  don't you know I am... Oh. It is local root beer. Well that floats my boat.


----------



## jasper (Feb 21, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Eh, for the most part the argument has been framed in terms of DM workload vs. Player workload.



Thanks. To sum up. And a little add.
GMing is hard due to fact the GM has a larger workload than a Player.
Little add. As GM I have to talk to all you beeping people. As Player I just have to talk to the GM. 
***
I not talking to Lanefan this week because he told the head cheerleader I thought she was hot. And now that evil football captain Maxperson has shove me into my locker. 
hello hello is any one out there? My locker combination is 32-.6.36


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

jasper said:


> Thanks. To sum up. And a little add.
> GMing is hard due to fact the GM has a larger workload than a Player.
> Little add. As GM I have to talk to all you beeping people. As Player I just have to talk to the GM.
> ***
> ...



To be clear.  Are you saying DMing is hard, or just harder than playing due to the work load?


----------



## jasper (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> To be clear.  Are you saying DMing is hard, or just harder than playing due to the work load?



I not talking to you this week!.   
Harder due to the work load.  Even if you push all the rules knowledge, and booking keeping to another gamer; a GM has to handle multiple people talking to them.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I haven't, but admittedly I've skipped several posts.  I have seen quote a few people saying it's harder and being accused of saying it's hard. I have seen those people like my posts clarifying that while it's not hard to DM, it is harder than playing.




Heck, for many people playing is hard.  It can be very difficult to carve out consistent multiple-hour blocks of time to engage in entertainment.

Being a DM is hard for some; much like knitting and birdwatching are hard for me.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 21, 2020)

jasper said:


> Oh. It is local root beer. Well that floats my boat.



So you're saying you like root beer floats?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Eh, for the most part the argument has been framed in terms of DM workload vs. Player workload.




Wel it's been framed that harness can be compared by looking at workload.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 21, 2020)

Since yesterday, one of the games I’m playing in has been put on hiatus because the DM has other commitments that prevent him from ensuring he can DM adequately.  He is still able to play though. 

 Irony!


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 22, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> Since yesterday, one of the games I’m playing in has been put on hiatus because the DM has other commitments that prevent him from ensuring he can DM adequately.  He is still able to play though.
> 
> Irony!



This has has been the case in my group as well, to all of the DMs at some point (including myself). 

Things in their lives got hectic and they weren't confident in their ability to devote the time and resources that they felt were necessary to running a good game. So they bowed out and another DM took over (we're fortunate in that this group is made up of multiple DMs). 

It was perfectly understandable. Life happens; most of us at that table are getting older and have greater responsibilities away from the table than we used to. In many cases, the one stepping down would still play, just not run. IMO, it's not all that much different from asking someone else to take over due to DM burnout, this is just preemptive.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> No; but it's most of it, which means if discussions like these don't largely revolve around it they're not much use for the vast majority in the hobby.



And?

This isn't a community service provider for D&D players. It's a discussion forum for RPGing. And the description of the General forum says it's for discussion of systems that_ don't_ have their own dedicated subforums.

This repeated attempt to channel all discussion into discussion of D&D is becoming a bit frustrating. If you want to talk about DY&D there's a whole other part of the board set aside just for that.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> And?
> 
> This isn't a community service provider for D&D players. It's a discussion forum for RPGing. And the description of the General forum says it's for discussion of systems that_ don't_ have their own dedicated subforums.
> 
> This repeated attempt to channel all discussion into discussion of D&D is becoming a bit frustrating. If you want to talk about DY&D there's a whole other part of the board set aside just for that.



It's as frustrating as trying to define why GM'ing is harder than playing for (most) GM's because X... and being continuously told not all games require X. Where "not all games" is some obscure ttrpgthat only a minuscule portion of the hobby base has heard of and even less play regularly.

How does citing such a game in fact address (again for the vast majority of the hobby since nothing is 100%) whether GM'ing is harder than playing and/or it has more importance as a role? Instead it feels like more of a way to push a particular playstyle or shut down real conversation as opposed to addressing the question in a practical way


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Imaro said:


> It's as frustrating as trying to define why GM'ing is harder than playing for (most) GM's because X... and being continuously told not all games require X. Where "not all games" is some obscure ttrpgthat only a minuscule portion of the hobby base has heard of and even less play regularly.
> 
> How does citing such a game in fact address (again for the vast majority of the hobby since nothing is 100%) whether GM'ing is harder than playing and/or it has more importance as a role? Instead it feels like more of a way to push a particular playstyle or shut down real conversation as opposed to addressing the question in a practical way



There's a way to make this argument without denigrating games or people aware of more games than D&D.  Sure, 800 pound gorilla and all, but let's not be elitist either way, yeah?  Because, it's equally frustrating to see people treat not only D&D but the accumulated detritus of tradition and belief that surrounds "how you play D&D" be cited uncritically and without any consideration that there might be a different way, even in D&D, much less outside of it.  It's a diverse hobby, so unless you really only want D&D, let's not be so hasty as to call everything else "niche" and decide to ignore that everything else just because it's more comfortable and less challenging.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2020)

The majority of mainstream games rely on a similar dynamic between the GM and the players as found in D&D.  GURPS, anything produced by Palladium, most World of Darkness games, Legend of the Five Rings, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Star Wars produced by FFG, WOTC, and FFG, Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Alien, and many others I'm sure.  But that doesn't make games with a different dynamic any lesser for it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2020)

MGibster said:


> The majority of mainstream games rely on a similar dynamic between the GM and the players as found in D&D.  GURPS, anything produced by Palladium, most World of Darkness games, Legend of the Five Rings, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Star Wars produced by FFG, WOTC, and FFG, Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, Alien, and many others I'm sure.  But that doesn't make games with a different dynamic any lesser for it.



I've GMed quite a bit of Classic Traveller over the past two-to-three years.

I won't dispute that it puts certain demands on the GM (as it does also on the players). But I wouldn't say that prep is one of the them. I say this only because I get the impression that _preparation _is being identified (in this thread, if not necessarily by you) as a significant burden on GMs. And for Traveller I don't think it is.

A referee needs to roll up a few NPCs and worlds, true, but that is pretty quick. Designing starships takes more time but the system comes with a number of prewritten designs (analogous to a D&D MM) that are good enough to work with.

There's no need to prepare "adventures" in advance beyond these things. It can be played pretty close to "no myth" style, using the various systems (for patrons, other encounters, random generation of cargo, etc, etc) to establish the required setting elements as one goes along.

I get the impression that this is different from eg WoD or CoC, which - as I understand it - depend much more on preparing the adventure. (Though I've run Cthulhu Dark sessions fine with no prep and riffing off the players' PC professions to get things going.)


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I've GMed quite a bit of Classic Traveller over the past two-to-three years.




I GMed it back in the day and I didn't find the burden to be more or less than it was for other games.  I still had to come up with a campaign, outline adventures, create NPCs, etc., etc.  



> A referee needs to roll up a few NPCs and worlds, true, but that is pretty quick. Designing starships takes more time but the system comes with a number of prewritten designs (analogous to a D&D MM) that are good enough to work with.




That's the easy stuff.  The GM still needs to plot out the campaign and individual scenarios, come up with NPCs, and during game play they need to adapt whatever he's planned to what the PCs choose to do, roleplay the NPCs, and serve as arbitrator.  Even when running a prewritten scenario, the GM must prepare by actually reading it and understanding everything.  It's a rare GM who can consistently run decent games without preparing for them.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I GMed it back in the day and I didn't find the burden to be more or less than it was for other games.  I still had to come up with a campaign, outline adventures, create NPCs, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the easy stuff.  The GM still needs to plot out the campaign and individual scenarios, come up with NPCs, and during game play they need to adapt whatever he's planned to what the PCs choose to do, roleplay the NPCs, and serve as arbitrator.  Even when running a prewritten scenario, the GM must prepare by actually reading it and understanding everything.  It's a rare GM who can consistently run decent games without preparing for them.



You don't have to do any of that, though.  You can run in the moment and let the play direct the game.  And, this isn't as hard as it's made out to be, nor does it generate less deep play.  It's only hard if you bring pre-writing assumptions with you.  If you keep everything not already established in play as fluid, and only generate what's needed to continue the direction of play, then the 'making it up on the fly' is actually pretty tightly constrained and follows naturally from the events in play.

Now, games that don't give the GM levers make it harder.  By this, I mean games that present pass/fail checks without grades of success or failure (or both at the same time) make following the fiction a tad harder, but that can be addressed by moving the point of focus.  What I mean by this is that games, like 5e for instance, that do pass fail also tend to have a focus on the immediate action.  The game generates obstacles like a locked door who's resolution is to unlock the door via a skill check, and that's either passed or failed.  If passed, you move to the next atomic obstacle and repeat.  If failed, you repeat the check or do another check, or abandon the obstacle, but that obstacle is the focus.  This is enormously hard to ad lib, because it feels, on the GM side, like arbitrary roadblocks with no where to go if you faceplant a few checks -- you have to ad lib a brand new direction after you just did that for this one!  Yikes, scary, hard, not rewarding.  But, this is how you build these games from prep, where you have the time to consider other routes.  You can't do this when running in the moment.  You have to change focus to the bigger objective.  In this example, the objective may be to get into the castle.  You then just have to present a number of obstacles to this -- maybe 3 or 4 -- of which a locked door could be one.  Then, on a success, you advance, on a failure, you add a complication.  You don't need to have guard routes pre-planned or look at your notes, a failed lockpicking results in a guard patrol (or other thing, whatever fits).  By putting the mechanics to work, you don't have to make everything up, or ad lib a complete castle, you just need to to the parts that are needed when they are needed.  It's far easier than assumed, if you actually let go of all of the assumptions of prep and the idea that you, as GM, have to present a world that is previously defined for the players to interact with.

Now, if you use maps and minis, this does get harder.  5e isn't super easy to have the tactical wargame part mix in with ad libbing.  You have to make choices, which goes to my larger point that most of the 'hard' work of 'harder than the players' work in D&D is a choice.  You don't have to work that hard to run D&D.  You choose to.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You don't have to do any of that, though.  You can run in the moment and let the play direct the game.  And, this isn't as hard as it's made out to be, nor does it generate less deep play.  It's only hard if you bring pre-writing assumptions with you.




I disagree.  It's generally obvious to me when the GM hasn't made any preparations for the game and that's especially true for those who I've been gaming with for a while.  I accept that your experience has been different from mine, but I still believe a GM needs to do more preparation for a game than a player.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I disagree.  It's generally obvious to me when the GM hasn't made any preparations for the game and that's especially true for those who I've been gaming with for a while.  I accept that your experience has been different from mine, but I still believe a GM needs to do more preparation for a game than a player.



Yup, if you bring that with you, it'll be impossible.  Choices.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 24, 2020)

Of course there is a burden on DM's that the players don't have to worry about. While DM's hopefully find that burden worthwhile and perhaps even fun, it's still a burden. Anything else is poppycock in a game even slightly similar to D&D.

It equates to a carpenter spending days framing out a house and finishing it and then making furniture while a friend just waits for the call that it is all done. Then driving out and spending the night in the house. 

The Carpenter has more burden. Now hopefully he found it worthwhile and fun and a good time was had by both but only one had to put the time and effort into it.

Now there are some games out there that are different and don't require a lot of time spent doing prep. Even those games however still have some prep to be very good.

I dunno why it is on the internet people will argue anything.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 24, 2020)

Probably not enough advice has been given in the DMG about this, but I generally find that if, using the rather crude example by Ovinomancer, the plot requires a specific door to be opened and no other easy/immediate options are readily available or known, the check would _generally_ succeed but at a cost.
So you open the door, but the lockpicks break or as you open the door it sets off a trap or the opening of the scrapes against the floor creating much noise initiating a wandering encounter...etc

Again this was a rather crude example and I'm not saying hard no's should not exist...

EDIT: I feel this somewhat relates to Manbearcat defining one of the roles of the DM as an entertainer.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 24, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> Of course there is a burden on DM's that the players don't have to worry about. While DM's hopefully find that burden worthwhile and perhaps even fun, it's still a burden. Anything else is poppycock in a game even slightly similar to D&D.
> 
> It equates to a carpenter spending days framing out a house and finishing it and then making furniture while a friend just waits for the call that it is all done. Then driving out and spending the night in the house.
> 
> ...




Perhaps it’s due to the degree of the difference stated? 

I wouldn’t say that the difference in workload between DM and player is that of a carpenter who builds a house and also all the furniture and a friend who just shows up to sleep at the house.

This implies a huge difference in the workload that simply isn’t necessary.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 24, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You don't have to do any of that, though.  You can run in the moment and let the play direct the game.  And, this isn't as hard as it's made out to be, nor does it generate less deep play.  It's only hard if you bring pre-writing assumptions with you.  If you keep everything not already established in play as fluid, and only generate what's needed to continue the direction of play, then the 'making it up on the fly' is actually pretty tightly constrained and follows naturally from the events in play.
> 
> Now, games that don't give the GM levers make it harder.  By this, I mean games that present pass/fail checks without grades of success or failure (or both at the same time) make following the fiction a tad harder, but that can be addressed by moving the point of focus.  What I mean by this is that games, like 5e for instance, that do pass fail also tend to have a focus on the immediate action.  The game generates obstacles like a locked door who's resolution is to unlock the door via a skill check, and that's either passed or failed.  If passed, you move to the next atomic obstacle and repeat.  If failed, you repeat the check or do another check, or abandon the obstacle, but that obstacle is the focus.  This is enormously hard to ad lib, because it feels, on the GM side, like arbitrary roadblocks with no where to go if you faceplant a few checks -- you have to ad lib a brand new direction after you just did that for this one!  Yikes, scary, hard, not rewarding.  But, this is how you build these games from prep, where you have the time to consider other routes.  You can't do this when running in the moment.  You have to change focus to the bigger objective.  In this example, the objective may be to get into the castle.  You then just have to present a number of obstacles to this -- maybe 3 or 4 -- of which a locked door could be one.  Then, on a success, you advance, on a failure, you add a complication.  You don't need to have guard routes pre-planned or look at your notes, a failed lockpicking results in a guard patrol (or other thing, whatever fits).  By putting the mechanics to work, you don't have to make everything up, or ad lib a complete castle, you just need to to the parts that are needed when they are needed.  It's far easier than assumed, if you actually let go of all of the assumptions of prep and the idea that you, as GM, have to present a world that is previously defined for the players to interact with.
> 
> Now, if you use maps and minis, this does get harder.  5e isn't super easy to have the tactical wargame part mix in with ad libbing.  You have to make choices, which goes to my larger point that most of the 'hard' work of 'harder than the players' work in D&D is a choice.  You don't have to work that hard to run D&D.  You choose to.




Again this feels like the answer is don't play D&D, play something else with the trappings of D&D layered on it... is that really the answer to making D&D easier to DM or is that GM'ing a different game?  DungeonWorld I believe does much of what you are suggesting above but when running it (and arguably playing it) it isn't the same as running or playing a game of D&D... or do you disagree?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Again this feels like the answer is don't play D&D, play something else with the trappings of D&D layered on it... is that really the answer to making D&D easier to DM or is that GM'ing a different game?  DungeonWorld I believe does much of what you are suggesting above but when running it (and arguably playing it) it isn't the same as running or playing a game of D&D... or do you disagree?



I run 5e, pretty much straight from the book.  So, no, that's not what it means.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 24, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I run 5e, pretty much straight from the book.  So, no, that's not what it means.




But you admit in your own post that it makes some things harder than they would normally be running 5e in a traditional manner... like the miniature combat example you gave... right?

EDIT: As well as utilizing the binary nature of 5e's skill checks... these feel like playstyle choices that affect how a game is played and run.

EDIT2: I guess I would love to see some suggestions on how one can stick to the expected playstyle of D&D or most traditional games that work like it and still make prep easier.  Perhaps something like prep major and add details in the moment... That seems like it might make prep easier without assumptions/playstyle/rules changes.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Imaro said:


> But you admit in your own post that it makes some things harder than they would normally be running 5e in a traditional manner... like the miniature combat example you gave... right?
> 
> EDIT: As well as utilizing the binary nature of 5e's skill checks... these feel like playstyle choices that affect how a game is played and run.
> 
> EDIT2: I guess I would love to see some suggestions on how one can stick to the expected playstyle of D&D or most traditional games that work like it and still make prep easier.  Perhaps something like prep major and add details in the moment... That seems like it might make prep easier without assumptions/playstyle/rules changes.



Choices.  You can run 5e pretty darned easily, but that requires a lot more from the players than "move into the GM built house."  Similarlu, you can do a lot of work.  You choose.  If your starting point is "I want all these things due to GM prep" then, sure, you're going to see a lot more work on the GM side of the screen.  If you don't start there, you'll see something different.  The cire point being: don't confuse your choices for necessity.

When I run 5e, both my players and I enjoy heavy tactical play.  That rewuires a bit more prep because you need a map and more tightly balanced encounters.  My experience makes the latter easy (especially with a tool like KFC), but I really like detailed maps.  That's on me, and 80%+ of my prep is maps.  
Part of tge issue here is low exoectations of players, or that it's assumed the GM must compensate for low energy playerd.  Again, choice.  You can expect players to biild strong hooks into their characters and/or lean into the fiction rather than away.  This makes GMing sooo very much easier.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 24, 2020)

Imaro said:


> EDIT2: I guess I would love to see some suggestions on how one can stick to the expected playstyle of D&D or most traditional games that work like it and still make prep easier.  Perhaps something like prep major and add details in the moment... That seems like it might make prep easier without assumptions/playstyle/rules changes.




I can offer a bit of an example for this, I think. I’ve just prepped for my 5E game tomorrow night. This is an ongoing campaign, the PCs are level 13, and the setting is the greater D&D multiverse. In this case, they’re in the City of Sigil, and specifically headed toward an asylum called Harbinger House, which is in the Lower Ward of the city. The reason they’re going there is that they are looking for people who have information they need, and one of those people, they’ve learned, is in the asylum. We left off our last session with them arriving at Harbinger House.

So my prep for this coming session consists of a handful of bullet points. I’ve listed a few relevant NPCs- a short blurb on how they behave and how they appear. I’ll embellish these during play. A couple need stat blocks, so I’ve made note of which ones to use and page numbers. Indexing the stat blocks was probably the most time intensive element of my prep. 

I’ve made a short list of details about the location itself....the look and feel of the place, and different rooms or subsections. I haven’t mapled it out in detail. There’s also an important artifact that keeps those within the asylum from running rampant, so I’ve noted that here. 

There’s a situation going on there that I’ve thought up, and I’ve created a list if clues to mention that help indicate to the PCs that something’s not right here. 

Finally, I’ve bullet pointed the situation currently going on in Harbinger House. Just what’s going on, why, what it means, and how to stop it. 

Most of what I expect to go on in the session is in my head. What I’ve written down is essentially 4 lists of bullet points, each with a header. It all fits on one page. I’ve probably spent about a twenty minutes to a half hour typing it all out and organizing my thoughts. 

My lists help me present everything.  Exactly what the PCs will do and how things will go during play is entirely up to them. There’s no one way for them to engage this scenario. Anything that comes up in play that’s not in my notes will either be something I can make up on the spot (what are the doors made of? Iron!) or that I can base on the results of a check (what do I hear down the corridor? Make a Perception check!) 

I expect that Harbinger House will take up the bulk, if not all, of our session. If it doesn’t, then I have a very loose idea of what may happen next, but that will largely depend on what the players do. If they come up with some clever way to navigate the danger of Harbinger House and get the information they need quickly, then that’s awesome! I’ll wing it based on what they’ve done. I’ll feel less like my prep is wasted if I don’t spend tons of time on it. 

I’m sure the above may be quite different from what @Ovinomancer has in mind. But different things work for different folks, and that’s good.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I can offer a bit of an example for this, I think. I’ve just prepped for my 5E game tomorrow night. This is an ongoing campaign, the PCs are level 13, and the setting is the greater D&D multiverse. In this case, they’re in the City of Sigil, and specifically headed toward an asylum called Harbinger House, which is in the Lower Ward of the city. The reason they’re going there is that they are looking for people who have information they need, and one of those people, they’ve learned, is in the asylum. We left off our last session with them arriving at Harbinger House.
> 
> So my prep for this coming session consists of a handful of bullet points. I’ve listed a few relevant NPCs- a short blurb on how they behave and how they appear. I’ll embellish these during play. A couple need stat blocks, so I’ve made note of which ones to use and page numbers. Indexing the stat blocks was probably the most time intensive element of my prep.
> 
> ...



… which is still more than is required of players.  As is the amount of scene framing and adjudication the actual session will require.


I am amused by some of the arguments that seem to be  "See! It doesn't require more than player!  I only do this and this and this using learned techniques players aren't exposed to!  But this doesn't _really_ count as more work because I find it easy now that I have multiple years of experience!"


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Again this feels like the answer is don't play D&D, play something else with the trappings of D&D layered on it... is that really the answer to making D&D easier to DM or is that GM'ing a different game?  DungeonWorld I believe does much of what you are suggesting above but when running it (and arguably playing it) it isn't the same as running or playing a game of D&D... or do you disagree?




To be fair, in order for the DM to do less work, the players need to step up and take some of the burden.  If you have D&D trained players where they are more or less expected by everything published by the game to sit back and passively lap up whatever the DM doles out from the plot wagon, then, yup, the DM's going to have to shoulder much of the burden.  It's like @MGibster said - he can "tell" when the DM hasn't prepped.  Why can he tell?  Probably because his group isn't pro-active enough to take the burden of preparation away from the DM.

Which is why people point to non-D&D games here.  Many of the non-D&D games, particularly the indie ones, tend to shift the GMing responsibilities away from any single person at the table.  D&D, and other very traditional games, don't.  Look at the advice for D&D, stretching back to the first issue of The Strategic Review and you'll see pages and pages and more pages of how the DM creates the adventure, campaign, world, etc.  Virtually no advice on how to get the players to be more pro-active and take more responsibility for what happens at the table.  Where's the section in the Player's Handbook that tells the players, "Hey, this is YOUR game too.  Which means, with great power comes great responsibility.  Get off your ass and contribute more than just reacting to the DM."  Even things like Backgrounds and whatnot are a tacked on afterthought - a couple of pages AFTER you buy your sword.  

In a more player driven game, Backgrounds, Themes, and that sort of thing should be the FIRST thing you develop for your character, not the last.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 24, 2020)

Nagol said:


> … which is still more than is required of players.  As is the amount of scene framing and adjudication the actual session will require.
> 
> 
> I am amused by some of the arguments that seem to be  "See! It doesn't require more than player!  I only do this and this and this using learned techniques players aren't exposed to!  But this doesn't _really_ count as more work because I find it easy now that I have multiple years of experience!"




I didn’t say it was less than what a player does. I said it was less than what many are saying is “necessary.”

None of it is all that hard, either. I haven’t said that GMing is easier than playing. I’ve said that it doesn’t need  to be considerably harder. 

Nothing other than my knowledge of the setting came from years of experience. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that not taking anything for granted...nothing as a given....was the best lesson I learned as far as GMing goes. I had to unlearn a lot of things that I simply accepted as truth. GMing doesn’t _have to be _any specific thing.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Nagol said:


> … which is still more than is required of players.  As is the amount of scene framing and adjudication the actual session will require.
> 
> 
> I am amused by some of the arguments that seem to be  "See! It doesn't require more than player!  I only do this and this and this using learned techniques players aren't exposed to!  But this doesn't _really_ count as more work because I find it easy now that I have multiple years of experience!"



And, I'm amused by the shifting goalposts -- important -> harder -> does more -- and the counting of things a DM does that a player doesn't as proof of "more".  Or is it "harder?"

But, anyway, @hawkeyefan clearly presented how you can do much less than many have claimed and still run a D&D game, and what he lists isn't exactly hard work, either.  What he does is still more than the minimum necessary, which is definitely his choice because he enjoys that level of work.

@hawkeyefan -- I do less on the lists and way way more on the maps.  My campaign prep for the last three sessions has been the same 10 minutes of jotting down some notes in Onenote, much like your bulleted lists.  And, about 2 hours of selecting and populating some maps.  We, too, are in Sigil, although my campaign started and centers there.  Our trip to the Asylum was a hoot as well, built off of three bullet points and mostly following the play.  Ended up with the PCs agreeing to smuggle in some "contraband" in return for some information and then the smuggling effort.  All based off of three bullet points that said, essentially, this guy used to work for the person the players are looking for, he's kinda dim, and he really, really wants a signed autograph from his favorite neighborhood pit fighter, who happened to be another PC (and was the "contraband" smuggled in later).


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> It's like @MGibster said - he can "tell" when the DM hasn't prepped.  Why can he tell?  Probably because his group isn't pro-active enough to take the burden of preparation away from the DM.





Why would any of us take on that burden?  That's not how we roll.  I may be the primary DM in my group but when someone else takes the reins they're not joking around.  They take on all the duties associated with being the DM.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Feb 25, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Why would any of us take on that burden?  That's not how we roll.  I may be the primary DM in my group but when someone else takes the reins they're not joking around.  They take on all the duties associated with being the DM.




I agree for the most part. However, by having people keep track of stuff like note-taking and hit points during a battle, it can help the game run more smoothly.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2020)

Even when my group played Apocalypse World, when the GM couldn't make it to the game we couldn't play.  When a player couldn't make it we were able to continue playing just fine.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2020)

The Green Hermit said:


> I agree for the most part. However, by having people keep track of stuff like note-taking and hit points during a battle, it can help the game run more smoothly.




I suppose that's true.  But what does that have to do with whether or not the DM is the most important person at the table?  This thread as really gone off on an odd tangent in regards to the difficulty of running games.  Personally, I don't think the ease or difficulty at running a game is what makes the DM more or less important.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2020)

MGibster said:


> The GM still needs to plot out the campaign and individual scenarios



That was really my point. In Classic Traveller the referee doesn't need to do these things.

I started my campaign with a few NPCs and worlds rolled up. I rolled up the starting world after the players had rolled their PCs. We worked together to come up with some backstory that explained - in light of their "lifepaths" revealed by the PC gen process - what they were doing on the world. One of the players suggested that the world itself was a gas giant moon.

I then rolled a random patron on the patron encounter table, and connected her to a couple of PC backstories. And we went from there. (Eg I established some more backstory for the mission she gave them when one of the PCs - the ex-diplomat - seduced her (good reaction roll modified by Liasion) and then succeeded on an Interrogation roll.)

Classic Traveller supports this sort of thing well because it has so many systems for content generation, and has a lot of default elements that suggest interesting situations (starships, strange worlds, etc).



Ovinomancer said:


> games that don't give the GM levers make it harder. By this, I mean games that present pass/fail checks without grades of success or failure (or both at the same time) make following the fiction a tad harder



My own view is that more important than this - which reminds me very much of PbtA - is robust conflict resolution. That's not to say anything against the PbtA approach, but the reason I rate conflict reolution as more important is because _this_ is what creates the impetus to action - situations arise and are resolved one way or the other, with new situations emerging out of them; there's not the "stalling at the locked door" that you rightly identify as a possible roadblock. And Classic Traveller, at least, supports "fail forward" pretty well and even has it built into some of its resolution frameworks, like working with vacc suits and travelling between worlds.

(As I've posted more than once in the past couple of years, the exception to this in CT is the syste for onworld exploration. It has some reasonable internal components, like rules for vehicle breakdowns and repairs, and for animal encounters and natural phenomena. But it has no overarching system for resolution beyond _we get there when the referee says we get there_. It's not a coincidence that my current campaign has featured only one episode of onwolrd epxloration, namely, the one where I realised that the system was weak.)

5e D&D has far more mechanical moving parts that CT, and so while your explanation of how it can be done "no myth" and "fail forward" seems compelling to me, I can see how some D&D players/GMs might find the prospect challenging. That's why I especially called out Traveller from the list of games in @McGibster's earlier post.



MGibster said:


> It's a rare GM who can consistently run decent games without preparing for them.





MGibster said:


> It's generally obvious to me when the GM hasn't made any preparations for the game



It was no secret to my players that I was rolling up a starting world, rolling a patron, etc. We were all there talking through the process.

When I've run Cthulhu Dark we've likewise played no prep, no myth. The first time I had reviewed an old CoC scenario, The Vanishing Conjuror, but it was pretty weak and I think the scenario we came up with (involving a freighter carrying a shoggoth in its hold from Scotland to Boston for reasons that never emerged in play, and then trying to take it on to Newfoundland but sinking after being driven onto rocks by a tug under the command of a PC) was just as compelling. And required no prep other than me printing out a copy of the Cthulhu Dark rules (two sides of A4) before we played.

Our Prince Valiant campaign started with no prep - once the players had generated PCs, I chose what looked like an easy starting scenario from the Episodes Book. Since then it has never involved prep beyond me reviewing some Episodes to work out which would be fun to run.

Although different people take different approaches to this, as a GM I do like to know the rules of the system - especially if I'm the one introducing it to the group (as was the case for Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller, and our Dying Earth oneshot). But that's different from a constant burden of prep.

I tend to agree with @Ovinomancer that running without story prep is not as hard as is often suggested. To a significant extent it's attitudinal - about being comfortable relinquishing control over the direction of the fiction.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Feb 25, 2020)

It is a tangent, but it answered a specific point that was brought up. How much work a DM does could infer importance, depending upon your definition.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Why would any of us take on that burden?  That's not how we roll.  I may be the primary DM in my group but when someone else takes the reins they're not joking around.  They take on all the duties associated with being the DM.



The definition of 'duties' is what's at issue. You obviously have one specific idea what that is, but other people have very different ideas. The fact that someone else has a different idea there doesn't mean they're 'joking around' either. It is, in fact, very possible for an example of DMing that's different from your's to be perfectly legitimate and useful without that invalidating your personal idea of what DMing means.

You can shift back to numbers argument as often as you like too, it doesn't get any better or more useful. NOt a shot at you, but I'd that one asked and answered at this point.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2020)

I think we just have different ideas on how to best run games.  Which is fine.  I think we've answered the question presented in the OP as best we could have expected.  I'm gonna go ahead and bow out of the discussion now.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn’t say it was less than what a player does. I said it was less than what many are saying is “necessary.”
> 
> None of it is all that hard, either. I haven’t said that GMing is easier than playing. I’ve said that it doesn’t need  to be considerably harder.
> 
> Nothing other than my knowledge of the setting came from years of experience. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that not taking anything for granted...nothing as a given....was the best lesson I learned as far as GMing goes. I had to unlearn a lot of things that I simply accepted as truth. GMing doesn’t _have to be _any specific thing.




It's hard enough I've seen GMs step down from the role to play in essentially the same style of game because they couldn't maintain their current situation whether that's because of physical infirmary, emotional turmoil, or overwork.  They stepped down to player because it was easier than continuing to run.  In some cases, they returned to GM when their personal situations changed.  Other times, they happily remained players even when the direct causes had been dealt with because they found it more fulfilling and easier.   I have never had a player say "Playing is too hard right now.  How about I GM instead?"

When I prep for 1e, I know I'm going to spending a fair amount of time pre-game mapping, establishing foreshadow clues, and placing items, clues, treasure, and creatures.

When I prep for a Champions campaign, I know I have more up-front world development than 1e, and probably just as much pre-game prep -- it is just moved to relationships, NPC involvement, PC highlighting, and antagonist development.

I have little to none of that when I run Dungeonworld or FATE.  But I find running Dungeonworld or FATE _hard_ compared to the first two games.  

The adjudication is a lot tougher because I have entirely different considerations: narrative flow, framing constant action, establishing and maintaining pressure without being overwhelming, not pigeon-holing the group or leading it to my desired outcome, off the cuff presentation of interesting situations full of levers for the players to use, and reading the audience are tougher than the disinterested adjudication I need to pursue in 1e or the PC focused reveals and relationship highlights performed in Champions.  I find the extra control I need to take over scene framing and consequence assignment much more draining.

Part of that is inexperience:  I've only run a dozen of so Dungeonworld and FATE games compared to the decades of experience I have in 1e and Champions.  Part of it is personality: I prefer the roles of designer, adjudicator, and audience to being the group foil and scene framer.

Now, as I continue to run Dungeonworld and FATE, will it get easier?  Almost certainly.  But that's because it is hard right now.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

MGibster said:


> I suppose that's true.  But what does that have to do with whether or not the DM is the most important person at the table?  This thread as really gone off on an odd tangent in regards to the difficulty of running games.  Personally, I don't think the ease or difficulty at running a game is what makes the DM more or less important.




I tend to agree,  GMs are more important because if you want to put a new table together, one of the first questions needs to be "Who's running?"  thus the first person you need to recruit is a GM.  If you put together a group of players none of which want to GM then you still don't have a table.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I tend to agree,  GMs are more important because if you want to put a new table together, one of the first questions needs to be "Who's running?"  thus the first person you need to recruit is a GM.  If you put together a group of players none of which want to GM then you still don't have a table.



I find that asking 'who's going to play' is really the first question.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Even when my group played Apocalypse World, when the GM couldn't make it to the game we couldn't play.  When a player couldn't make it we were able to continue playing just fine.



You _couldn't_ play, or you chose not to?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> That was really my point. In Classic Traveller the referee doesn't need to do these things.
> 
> I started my campaign with a few NPCs and worlds rolled up. I rolled up the starting world after the players had rolled their PCs. We worked together to come up with some backstory that explained - in light of their "lifepaths" revealed by the PC gen process - what they were doing on the world. One of the players suggested that the world itself was a gas giant moon.
> 
> ...



Yup.  And, letting go of a long held tradition is _hard_.  It's a big mental shift to go from decades of D&D to realizing that you don't have to.  Other games can help this, but I see lots of people bounce off of other games because they don't make the shift.  And, that's okay.  Took me a good few tries before it clicked, and, honestly, I think a lot of that was due to arguing around here, at least a reasonable chunk of which was against you.  It appears we still disagree on some things, which is good, but at least I understand where you're coming from whereas before I really didn't.  

Oh, is this one of those things that never happens when discussing theory or on message boards?  Someone says, "hey, you helped change my mind!"  Should we tag @Umbran?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> /snip
> @hawkeyefan -- I do less on the lists and way way more on the maps.  My campaign prep for the last three sessions has been the same 10 minutes of jotting down some notes in Onenote, much like your bulleted lists.  And, about 2 hours of selecting and populating some maps.  /snip




Ahh, it's good to know that I'm not the only one with this disease.  There are just SO many beautiful maps out there.  I MUST collect them all.  Save them all.  USE them all.... ahem.    Never mind.  Nothing to see here.  



MGibster said:


> Why would any of us take on that burden?  That's not how we roll.  I may be the primary DM in my group but when someone else takes the reins they're not joking around.  They take on all the duties associated with being the DM.




Well, you would take on that burden in order that DMing is no longer so much of a burden on a single person.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Trad games, like D&D, tend to have everything done by the DM up front - you pick the setting, the campaign, etc.  Other games, like Fate, for example, create the campaign and the setting (for the large part) as part of character generation.  

To put it another way, it would be very difficult to have an Adventure Path for Fate.  It just wouldn't work.  In Trad games, you start with the adventure/campaign and the players are expected to create characters that fit that campaign.  In other games, it's reversed.  The characters come first and the campaign is developed FROM those characters.  Meaning that the workload is spread out pretty broadly amongst the group, instead of all resting on one person.

So, yeah, that's why you, as a player, as a good player, should ALWAYS be looking at ways to take the burden off the DM.  Because, the best group is the one where everyone is proactive, creating the campaign together, rather than as passive consumers, sitting back while the DM shoulders nearly all the workload and only reacting when the DM rolls up the plot wagon.

My advice is to be a good player.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> It appears we still disagree on some things, which is good



Sure - disagreement is normal in the aesthetic/critical domain!

One thing that you, @Manbearcat, @Campbell, @hawkeyefan and @chaochou - to point to some regulars in these outings - all have in common, that I don't, is serious PbtA play experience. I've played a bit but not a lot of Dungeon World (online, Manbearcat GMing). The closest I've come to GMing it is running Classic Traveller treating the various subsystems as "moves" (though with more baroque structures than the elegance of PbtA) and my pre-rolled worlds and NPCs as my "fronts". Which isn't as un-close as it might seem at first, but is still a good distance from the real thing. (And crucially lacks the PC development aspect of PbtA.)

That lack of experience is probably one reason why more than anyone else in these threads I see _framing_ and _finality of resolution_(upthread I called it "conflict resolution" - same diff from my point of view) as so fundamental. With "fail forward" narration of adverse consequences coming a pretty close second (and feeding right back into framing). Because (while I didn't have the vocabulary to describe it) focused but open-ended framing and "fail forward" were the key techniques I stumbled onto in the latter part of the 80s and worked on through the 90s to improve my own RPGing experience; and (again without having had the vocabulary to describe it) a lack of finality short of _GM decides we're done now_ was a recurring problem (mostly in Rolemaster play) which BW's "Let it Ride", 4e skill challenges, HeroWars/Quest, and other systems really helped me identify and sort out in my own play. (And let me appreciate other, older systems that had mostly solved the issue without me having notice it, like Classic Traveller.)

My preconceptions have been honed by experiences and ideas that really peaked around 2005-9: "no myth"-ish, scene-framed play.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2020)

A separate post that's maybe more on-topic:

If someone asked me _what's hard about GMing_ that might make it harder than playing, even playing well, I would say _juggling the fiction_.

There are probably 3 or 4 aspects of that (categorising this stuff will always be a bit arbitrary):

* Keeping track of stuff (ie elements of the fiction, whether established or incipient) available and/or necessary to frame scenes;​​* Keeping track of stuff available for consequences (if none of this is salient to the players, they won't feel much pressure and play might be a bit listless or "draggy");​​* Keeping track of stuff actually introduced as consequences;​​* When there are multiple things going on (eg group (a) is on the bridge of their starship while group (b) explores the abandoned space station), moving back and forth across players to try and keep everyone involved, which requires keeping track of and preferably interweaving parallel unfolding situations.​
After juggling the fiction, the other thing that I personally find sometimes challenges me as a GM is fitting what is going on into the mechanics. This isn't hard as the above, though, because the players can be recruited to help with it - even if it's just pointing to a skill or similar entry on their PC sheet that makes sense as a starting point for resolution.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, in order for the DM to do less work, the players need to step up and take some of the burden.  If you have D&D trained players where they are more or less expected by everything published by the game to sit back and passively lap up whatever the DM doles out from the plot wagon, then, yup, the DM's going to have to shoulder much of the burden.  It's like @MGibster said - he can "tell" when the DM hasn't prepped.  Why can he tell?  Probably because his group isn't pro-active enough to take the burden of preparation away from the DM.
> 
> Which is why people point to non-D&D games here.  Many of the non-D&D games, particularly the indie ones, tend to shift the GMing responsibilities away from any single person at the table.  D&D, and other very traditional games, don't.  Look at the advice for D&D, stretching back to the first issue of The Strategic Review and you'll see pages and pages and more pages of how the DM creates the adventure, campaign, world, etc.  Virtually no advice on how to get the players to be more pro-active and take more responsibility for what happens at the table.  Where's the section in the Player's Handbook that tells the players, "Hey, this is YOUR game too.  Which means, with great power comes great responsibility.  Get off your ass and contribute more than just reacting to the DM."  Even things like Backgrounds and whatnot are a tacked on afterthought - a couple of pages AFTER you buy your sword.
> 
> In a more player driven game, Backgrounds, Themes, and that sort of thing should be the FIRST thing you develop for your character, not the last.




So as long as you adopt a particular playstyle (player driven vs. DM driven) DM/GM'ing isn't harder than playing and it isn't a more important role than a player... Does that sum it up or am I misunderstanding something? 

This in turn means you need to find a specific type of player willing to take on some of the DM'ing responsibilities (of course their reason for playing as opposed to running could be that they don't want to take on said responsibilities), which may in and of itself (because it's not the traditional/expected way to play D&D) be hard or nearly impossible.  You need to be good at heavy improv (a skill not everyone posseses as well as being a style many may not enjoy) since you're not doing any planning but instead letting the players drive.  As a DM/GM you need to be able to take pretty extensive notes while playing since you're effectively making stuff up as you go, unless consistency isn't a worry. I just don't see this as necessarily easier just different and harder than playing in different ways from running in a traditional manner.  I also don't see how this eliminates the DM as the most important role...


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I find that asking 'who's going to play' is really the first question.




Play what if you haven't gotten someone to agree to run something?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Play what if you haven't gotten someone to agree to run something?



Play what if no one's playing?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Play what if no one's playing?




Type of players again depends on the game, playstyle, etc.... so that would be determined by what's being run which in turn would be determined by whose running it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Type of players again depends on the game, playstyle, etc.... so that would be determined by what's being run which in turn would be determined by whose running it.



So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?



GM and player roles are distinctly different in (if not all) the vast majority of roleplaying games.  Let's not play pedantic games here.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, GM is a type of player, but you have to know who is GM before you know who's playing?




Pretty much.  I won't run comedy or horror so if a group of players approaches me to run _Teenagers from Outer Space_ again, they're out of luck.  Similarly, I won't play CoC, so if a group is forming and someone says they'll run CoC,, I'm out.

Ultimately, the table is formed of a GM and those players who are willing to play what is on offer and with each other.  Since play preferences are a thing, they affect the ultimate table composition.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 25, 2020)

Nagol said:


> It's hard enough I've seen GMs step down from the role to play in essentially the same style of game because they couldn't maintain their current situation whether that's because of physical infirmary, emotional turmoil, or overwork.  They stepped down to player because it was easier than continuing to run.  In some cases, they returned to GM when their personal situations changed.  Other times, they happily remained players even when the direct causes had been dealt with because they found it more fulfilling and easier.   I have never had a player say "Playing is too hard right now.  How about I GM instead?"




Sure, people take breaks from things all the time. I've seen players bow out, too, for a variety of reasons. I've seen similar things with other activities, too. That stuff happens. 

Again, I'm not saying that GMing is easier than playing, or even as easy as playing. I'm saying that it's easier than many think, and it should not (or maybe need not) be significantly more difficult than playing.

And I think the idea of "more difficult" is pretty subjective, as well, which is causing some disagreement. I think the GM has more to do, and that is something I think many are focusing on as "proof" that the role is harder, but I don't really see it that way. Yes, there is more to do. None of it is individually all that hard....it's just managing it all that can be a challenge. 

Which is why I'm an advocate for having less to manage.



Nagol said:


> When I prep for 1e, I know I'm going to spending a fair amount of time pre-game mapping, establishing foreshadow clues, and placing items, clues, treasure, and creatures.




That's all fine. I'm all for whatever works for people. I generally don't create maps ahead of time unless there's a compelling reason to do so.....like maybe a dungeon delve where the specific location of everything matters, or if there's going to be a tactically meaningful combat where I want to have an idea of how to construct it before drawing it at the table on the battle mat. 

I think the manner of prep will depend on what the expected content will be for a given session. 

What do you do if your players, for whatever reason, decide not to engage with the material you've prepared? 

To go back to my asylum example, if they decide to not go in for some reason, I have a few other ideas that are currently possible, and I'll adapt and do what I need to depending on what the PCs do. But if I drew out a map and populated treasure and creatures onto it, I feel like I'd be more inclined to make sure it was used. How do you avoid that? 



Nagol said:


> When I prep for a Champions campaign, I know I have more up-front world development than 1e, and probably just as much pre-game prep -- it is just moved to relationships, NPC involvement, PC highlighting, and antagonist development.
> 
> I have little to none of that when I run Dungeonworld or FATE.  But I find running Dungeonworld or FATE _hard_ compared to the first two games.
> 
> The adjudication is a lot tougher because I have entirely different considerations: narrative flow, framing constant action, establishing and maintaining pressure without being overwhelming, not pigeon-holing the group or leading it to my desired outcome, off the cuff presentation of interesting situations full of levers for the players to use, and reading the audience are tougher than the disinterested adjudication I need to pursue in 1e or the PC focused reveals and relationship highlights performed in Champions.  I find the extra control I need to take over scene framing and consequence assignment much more draining.




I'm not familiar with Champions, and I've only minimal experience with Dungeonworld, but I think most games require a shift in preparation depending on the expectations of play. Many of these will be system dependent, and others will be table dependent.



Nagol said:


> Part of that is inexperience:  I've only run a dozen of so Dungeonworld and FATE games compared to the decades of experience I have in 1e and Champions.  Part of it is personality: I prefer the roles of designer, adjudicator, and audience to being the group foil and scene framer.
> 
> Now, as I continue to run Dungeonworld and FATE, will it get easier?  Almost certainly.  But that's because it is hard right now.




Sure, I expect it will. Now imagine you went online for guidance, and everyone said "no, it won't get easier.....it's always hard. There's nothing you can do about that." I mean, in your last post you pointed out that some of the things I'm talking about are ideas not available to new GMs.....but here I am sharing them so any possible new GMs will see them, and you seem resistant to that just to maintain the idea that GMing is hard. That's odd to me.

I think that's the general trend of posts here, and that's what I disagree with. Regardless of game or the experience level of the GM, everyone's game can likely be made to be easier in some way. There are tricks or techniques or tweaks that can be made that can improve the game in some way by easing the burden of the GM. 

I think that is really all I'm saying, and sharing some of the things that have helped me do that, and hoping to come across more that may prove useful.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup.  And, letting go of a long held tradition is _hard_.  It's a big mental shift to go from decades of D&D to realizing that you don't have to.  Other games can help this, but I see lots of people bounce off of other games because they don't make the shift.  And, that's okay.  Took me a good few tries before it clicked, and, honestly, I think a lot of that was due to arguing around here, at least a reasonable chunk of which was against you.  It appears we still disagree on some things, which is good, but at least I understand where you're coming from whereas before I really didn't.
> 
> Oh, is this one of those things that never happens when discussing theory or on message boards?  Someone says, "hey, you helped change my mind!"  Should we tag @Umbran?




I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!

I've even read some of it!


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, people take breaks from things all the time. I've seen players bow out, too, for a variety of reasons. I've seen similar things with other activities, too. That stuff happens.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that GMing is easier than playing, or even as easy as playing. I'm saying that it's easier than many think, and it should not (or maybe need not) be significantly more difficult than playing.
> 
> ...




I think we just have different definitions of hard.  If multiple people  have expressed an interest in doing X rather than Y because Y is harder for them then I'm happy to call Y hard.  If Y can be tamed over time with experience, great!  That doesn't make it not-hard.  Many people consider differential calculus hard, but it's really simple if you have the right mindset and know the rules.  That doesn't make it less hard.

Saying "It's not as hard as people think!"  is mostly meaningless since we aren't telepaths who have conducted extensive studies.  It is perceived hard enough that only a small percentage of players try to GM and actually hard enough that only a portion of those continue even in groups with support systems.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!
> 
> I've even read some of it!




Just make sure you don't get the first edition.  When @pemerton and @Manbearcat were originally talking about how great the game was, I couldn't figure out how this (fairly poor) D&D heartbreaker game was worth the time.

Let's just say... it changed radically.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 25, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Just make sure you don't get the first edition.  When @pemerton and @Manbearcat were originally talking about how great the game was, I couldn't figure out how this (fairly poor) D&D heartbreaker game was worth the time.
> 
> Let's just say... it changed radically.




While I certainly appreciate it and enjoyed it the few times I ran revised (I never ran the original), but @pemerton is the BW guy. I prefer Mouse Guard and Torchbearer. Plenty of overlap, but lots of difference in, genre, mechanical nuance, and structure of play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Imaro said:


> GM and player roles are distinctly different in (if not all) the vast majority of roleplaying games.  Let's not play pedantic games here.



I'd say the same to you.  GM is a role a player of the game takes.  Just because you want to skip ahead to role assignments because you think it supports your point doesn't mean it does.  You have to have a player to assign a role.  And if you only have one role assigned, you still don't have a game.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'd say the same to you.  GM is a role a player of the game takes.  Just because you want to skip ahead to role assignments because you think it supports your point doesn't mean it does.  You have to have a player to assign a role.  And if you only have one role assigned, you still don't have a game.



We've been using them distinctly for the majority of this discussion... now you're trying to use pedantry to what... exactly?  score points? Confuse the issue... what?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 25, 2020)

Interesting discussion.  I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:

1)  GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not.  Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.

2)  Being in a game where you have to heavily advocate for both your PC and the needs of your group (whether that be thematic decision-points, strategic decision-points, or tactical decision-points) while understanding the rules (and maybe even helping the GM in their correct deployment)...that always requires significant mental engagement and therefore never becomes passive or "easy."

3)  Being a player in a game where the rules are just there to (a) make it feel like you're actively participating in gamestate-changing decision-points and action resolution (b) while the GM is heavily using covert Force to manipulate the gamestate and tell a story...that is a comparatively passive and "easy" experience.



Personally, once you become significantly skillful and confident in running a game, I don't think the difference between (1) and (2) becomes an overwhelmingly thing, except in the rare cases where (a) you're running a granular hexcrawl and you have to manage a lot of high resolution information along with (b) a lot of rules interactions.

Once you're good at it, running Dogs, Blades, Dungeon World, and 4e are CONSIDERABLY less mentally taxing and table time intensive than a 1e, Expert, RC, 3.x, 5e hexcrawl.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Interesting discussion.  I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:
> 
> 1)  GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not.  Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.
> 
> ...




I tend to disagree.  I think it mostly matters what you are good at processing.  As I pointed out above, I have a much harder time running Dungeonworld and FATE than 1e or Champions simply because I find maintaining constant pressure and scene framing without forcing much more taxing than disinterested adjudication.  (as an aside, the issue I've brought up about Dungeonworld reflects a tendency of mine that I constantly have to fight when I'm running -- hence my being a strong stickler for 'a failure means failure'.)

One of the reasons my count of Dungeonworld games is so low is I am loath to commit to running a long-term game.  I'll run it for one-shots and short hauls, but there is just too much mental investment for me to do it week after week.  It is too intensive to be considered fun.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Interesting discussion.  I think my thoughts on this would be as follows:
> 
> 1)  GMing each separate game archetype/play priority (contrast Moldvay Basic with Torchbearer with D&D 4e with Dogs in the Vineyard with an early White Wolf game) is difficult...until its not.  Its always active and never "easy", but the difficulty-level decreases significantly with time, experience, skill-accrued, and a better understanding of overhead-management.




I think this is highly dependent upon the person, something I think really isn't being examined enough by those who believe indie games are "easier' to run than traditional... IME they're the people that FATE, PbtA and other indie games just don't click for. I think that for some they just aren't wired to handle constant on the fly improvisation, it never becomes easy for them to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated by said consequences (along with simpler the fiction also generated by simpler action declarations).  More importantly they don't have fun running a game in this manner.  As an example I don't think a DM with anxiety issues would feel comfortable enough to run in this manner very well (mush less consider it something fun to do).  I think for many, though it may be more intensive prep wise (and much less so while running the game), it is easier to have something they can fall back on as a foundation...whether that is an entire adventure path or simply the bullet point notes that @hawkeyefan spoke to earlier. 



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  Being in a game where you have to heavily advocate for both your PC and the needs of your group (whether that be thematic decision-points, strategic decision-points, or tactical decision-points) while understanding the rules (and maybe even helping the GM in their correct deployment)...that always requires significant mental engagement and therefore never becomes passive or "easy."




I agree... again with my caveat above (very dependent on the person) but I find it interesting you think this can never become passive or easy through repetition but GM'ing can... why is that?



Manbearcat said:


> 3)  Being a player in a game where the rules are just there to (a) make it feel like you're actively participating in gamestate-changing decision-points and action resolution (b) *while the GM is heavily using covert Force to manipulate the gamestate and tell a story...that is a comparatively passive and "easy" experience.*




Emphasis mine... not sure anyone is talking about games where this happens... I think you may be assuming here.



Manbearcat said:


> Once you're good at it, running Dogs, Blades, Dungeon World, and 4e are CONSIDERABLY less mentally taxing and table time intensive than a 1e, Expert, RC, 3.x, 5e hexcrawl.




Again for certain people maybe... but I find Blades easy to prep for (I don't really do anything beforehand) but mentally draining and much harder to consistently run at the table vs. D&D 5e which I find harder to prep for but much easier to run, especially as the game progresses.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 25, 2020)

@Nagol and @Imaro

That's fair.

There is definitely an "innate hardware" aspect of it that will make some folks better or worse at running different styles of play.

However, while neither of you may ever feel like you're as proficient at running Blades/Dogs as you are at running 1e/5e games, don't you think it would become considerably easier with time?  Perhaps to the point that a not-insignificant portion of the mental drain/stress you feel while running them would fade (perhaps you don't think so)?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I think this is highly dependent upon the person, something I think really isn't being examined enough by those who believe indie games are "easier' to run than traditional... IME they're the people that FATE, PbtA and other indie games just don't click for. I think that for some they just aren't wired to handle constant on the fly improvisation, it never becomes easy for them to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters *while keeping track of what fiction is generated by said consequences* (along with simpler the fiction also generated by simpler action declarations).  More importantly they don't have fun running a game in this manner.  As an example I don't think a DM with anxiety issues would feel comfortable enough to run in this manner very well (mush less consider it something fun to do).  I think for many, though it may be more intensive prep wise (and much less so while running the game), it is easier to have something they can fall back on as a foundation...whether that is an entire adventure path or simply the bullet point notes that @hawkeyefan spoke to earlier.
> 
> <snip>




Oh wow, that reminds me of some GMs that thought they were really so good at the improv juggling until I sat down and pointed out the absolutely massive plot holes, refrigerator moments, and inconsistencies that had crept in like 4 sessions!

I tend to keep very close track on things as I am constantly looking for patterns in hopes of finding something to exploit.  I had to stop because absolutely nothing was lining up.  I began to feel like I was either in a demented nightmare or was a paranoid schizophrenic seeing connections where none existed.  Letting go and treating each scene as independent made things easier, but was very unrewarding.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Nagol and @Imaro
> 
> That's fair.
> 
> ...




Everything gets easier with practice, but I don't expect it to get much better.  I started running non-D&D games within a year of starting Holmes Basic.  It's not like I only know a single trick.

Processing people is hard for me.  Not hard in the sense I can't do it, more hard in the sense I get exhausted quickly.

My current game I'm running as a unholy offspring-- very heavy improv with strong guiderails for the mission.  It works for me because I am able to avoid the constant pressure / room reading / consequence snowball.  Having each mission be strongly episodic and contained helps control inconsistent presentation and maintain long-term coherence.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Nagol and @Imaro
> 
> That's fair.
> 
> ...




I think repetition will make anything easier... that said I'm not sure I actually enjoy running games like BitD it feels like work in the moment and while I and my group have enjoyed the sessions but they aren't wowing us and it's not at the point where I consider running them to be fun yet.  I think that's the biggest hurdle, for me (even now with BitD)... continuing with something that for all intents and purposes is supposed to be a leisure activity but feels more like work than fun during actual play.


----------



## prabe (Feb 25, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> @Nagol and @Imaro
> 
> That's fair.
> 
> ...




I don't doubt that there's some hardware differences that lead to different people being more comfortable running different games, because they require something like different forms of processing, but I also think there's something analagous to imprinting (like baby ducks): The first game you run is on some level the game you expect to run thereafter, regardless of what it says on the cover and/or the pages. It's possible to retrain yourself to run differently, but it does take practice; I think the sort of flexibility to run multiple systems is a different thing, though also attainable with practice.

Taste preferences are a different thing, and probably more like software than hardware, and may be reflections of experiences at or away from the game table. Maybe you really don't like when people press your buttons, and being (for example) Compelled in Fate feels too much like that for you to enjoy the game when it happens. If you try to run Fate, you probably won't use Compels in the way the game expects you to, and the game probably won't work quite right without it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 25, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 25, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> But for all the nitpicking that might get involved, most people understand that the host has more obligations than the guests, and so, no matter how much the guests might chip in, even if they stick around and clean, even if they bring a bottle of wine and some apps, it's still more work to throw a party, and there are always more people willing to go to a party than there are people willing to throw a party.




And to continue this analogy (or something): Even if you're not prepping the adventures, and you're letting the players/characters determine the direction/s of play, each player really is primarily responding to you; you are responding to all the players, both as individuals and as a group. You've traded the time you've saved in prep for requiring more bandwidth to run. If that works for you and everyone else around the table, that's *awesome*. I personally find that even in my own more-narrative 5E games, I need to keep my prep under my feet, so to speak, or things start to stop making sense.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

prabe said:


> I don't doubt that there's some hardware differences that lead to different people being more comfortable running different games, because they require something like different forms of processing, but I also think there's something analagous to imprinting (like baby ducks): The first game you run is on some level the game you expect to run thereafter, regardless of what it says on the cover and/or the pages. It's possible to retrain yourself to run differently, but it does take practice; I think the sort of flexibility to run multiple systems is a different thing, though also attainable with practice.
> 
> Taste preferences are a different thing, and probably more like software than hardware, and may be reflections of experiences at or away from the game table. Maybe you really don't like when people press your buttons, and being (for example) Compelled in Fate feels too much like that for you to enjoy the game when it happens. If you try to run Fate, you probably won't use Compels in the way the game expects you to, and the game probably won't work quite right without it.




I have run dozens of systems.  Most were run to test drive the system and see how it performs in actual play.  I have a stable of about 10 I tend to fall back to for any single campaign (1e, Hero, Unisystem, Dungeonworld, Aftermath,  Ars Magica, Pendragon, BESM, FATE) and I choose a system that best matches the table experience I'm looking for.

When I was learning to run RPGs, the idea I'd stick to a single game never really crossed my mind any more than playing a single board game.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Eh. I think a lot of the dispute goes back to the original .... _framing _(heh) of the post. Is the DM the most important person at the table?
> 
> That's a lot like asking, "Is the host the most important person at the party?"
> 
> ...




It makes them important to know if you like attending parties!


----------



## prabe (Feb 25, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I have run dozens of systems.  Most were run to test drive the system and see how it performs in actual play.  I have a stable of about 10 I tend to fall back to for any single campaign (1e, Hero, Unisystem, Dungeonworld, Aftermath,  Ars Magica, Pendragon, BESM, FATE) and I choose a system that best matches the table experience I'm looking for.
> 
> When I was learning to run RPGs, the idea I'd stick to a single game never really crossed my mind any more than playing a single board game.




I expect you've played/run at tables where there were more options on the table than I have. I just haven't played at tables with that kind of breadth. I've played enough to be able to figure out how a given system works within a session or two (mostly), but I just don't have the brainspace to try to run ten different games. I suspect I'd get tripped up by different games using the same words to mean different things.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 25, 2020)

prabe said:


> I expect you've played/run at tables where there were more options on the table than I have. I just haven't played at tables with that kind of breadth. I've played enough to be able to figure out how a given system works within a session or two (mostly), but I just don't have the brainspace to try to run ten different games. I suspect I'd get tripped up by different games using the same words to mean different things.




The worst time I  have is when running variations of the same basic engine (different editions of Hero, or D&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.X, for examples).  The similarities are enough that I will cross-wire mechanics/jargon.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 25, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 25, 2020)

In 40 years of gaming, I've only had one campaign taken over by someone else... but that was fine, because I got to play, and in one of the settings I prefer to play rather than run: L5R.

I've had only a couple groups that continued to play together after I quit running... but one of those. the group had existed before I GMed for them, plays multiple games together, and are a tight knit bunch. And I run for them via Discord or Skype (whichever is working that week)...


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 25, 2020)

macd21 said:


> That’s a huge assumption you’re jumping to. I’ve spoken to people about GMing. Some have done it, but don’t want to do it again - they found it difficult, time consuming, and not as fun as playing. Others have never done it, and refuse to do it. Others have done it, and found they’re bad at it, to the extent that other players are reluctant to be in their games.
> 
> GMing is a skill, and not one everyone has. It’s not magic, and you get better with practice, but not everyone _wants _to. It would appear you’re fortunate enough to have numerous GMs in your local group, but as has been pointed out, that’s not the norm.




I'd argue it's not one skill, but a collection of skills... at least one of which is communication in general, and at least one is system specific knowledge.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 25, 2020)

Morrus said:


> The DM is currently the one performing the most important role in the game, but is not the most important person in the social group.



Makes an assumption that an RPG Group has social function outside the game. While that has been the norm, it's

When that's not true, tthe GM than also usually is the socially most important party.
This can be caused by

the group being friends of the GM but not each other (tho' that changes(
The group being respondents to an LFP advert
the group being organized by an outsider who appoints the GM
RPG Clubs
store Sponsored
Bar/Pub/restaurant sponsored
publisher sponsored play

Often the GM is the glue holding a group together, even if not the dominant in the social group.

I know I've had players who disliked each other play at my table... in the same game... in part because I will see to it that play remains civil... and everyone gets a turn.

And, there are others who simply won't game at my table.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I picked up a copy of Burning Wheel because of @pemerton just to see what it was he was talking about all the time!
> 
> I've even read some of it!



It's a good system!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2020)

Imaro said:


> You need to be good at heavy improv (a skill not everyone posseses as well as being a style many may not enjoy) since you're not doing any planning but instead letting the players drive.  As a DM/GM you need to be able to take pretty extensive notes while playing since you're effectively making stuff up as you go, unless consistency isn't a worry. I just don't see this as necessarily easier just different and harder than playing in different ways from running in a traditional manner.





Imaro said:


> I think that for some they just aren't wired to handle constant on the fly improvisation, it never becomes easy for them to create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated by said consequences (along with simpler the fiction also generated by simpler action declarations).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think for many, though it may be more intensive prep wise (and much less so while running the game), it is easier to have something they can fall back on as a foundation...whether that is an entire adventure path or simply the bullet point notes that @hawkeyefan spoke to earlier.



I think the need to take notes (_extensive_ or otherwise) can be exaggerated. A lot of the action in a RPG, at least in my experience, is "local" in time and space (eg a certain thing happens to a certain PC as a result of trying to do such-and-such) and so keeping track of it is not wildly different from keeping track of hit points or whether a door has been opened or shut in a simple game of D&D.

That's not to say there's no big picture stuff - of course there is - but tracking that has to be done in any game session. Whether you're marking changes on you prepped map and key, or noting stuff on a bit of paper that was blank to start with, you're still writing about the same amount.

This means that, as far as _consequences _are concerned, I'm not seeing the big gap between working from heavy preparation and other sorts of approaches. No matter how much prep a GM has done, doesn't s/he still have to _create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated_? If not, then what does play look like?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think the need to take notes (_extensive_ or otherwise) can be exaggerated. A lot of the action in a RPG, at least in my experience, is "local" in time and space (eg a certain thing happens to a certain PC as a result of trying to do such-and-such) and so keeping track of it is not wildly different from keeping track of hit points or whether a door has been opened or shut in a simple game of D&D.
> 
> That's not to say there's no big picture stuff - of course there is - but tracking that has to be done in any game session. Whether you're marking changes on you prepped map and key, or noting stuff on a bit of paper that was blank to start with, you're still writing about the same amount.
> 
> This means that, as far as _consequences _are concerned, I'm not seeing the big gap between working from heavy preparation and other sorts of approaches. No matter how much prep a GM has done, doesn't s/he still have to _create different and dynamic consequences on a fairly regular basis for multiple characters while keeping track of what fiction is generated_? If not, then what does play look like?





I would say the difference is when I've prepped beforehand, even if I miss something usually my notes will act as a reminder or have enough hints that it will jog my memory around something I may have missed noting down... However  when I'm creating whole cloth in a game like BitD I'm constantly jotting down stuff because there's nothing for me to fall back on if I forget to note something down.

On a slight tangent but definitely related... it has been my experience that while I can often tell what my players take note of or think is important it doesn't always work like that, a minor detail created in the moment I thought of as throw away is suddenly something they want to leverage three sessions later.

EDIT: To address your statement about consequences... in the same way  if I do prep beforehand I can jot down different information for different levels of a knowledge check... I can also jot down various positive and negative consequences that may arise for PC actions, even if I don't use the specific ones I wrote down (say the characters made a choice, action, whatever that I didn't account for) they can act as a springboard for creating new ones.  Creating consequence after consequence which games like BitD seemed designed to have happen with a much greater frequency than traditional games because of the the rolls without any type of prep creates quite a large gap in the necessity for note taking as well as the expended mental bandwith.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> We've been using them distinctly for the majority of this discussion... now you're trying to use pedantry to what... exactly?  score points? Confuse the issue... what?



If that's confusing the issue, I'm all for an anarchy of befuddlement.  I mean, really, it seems your point of contention is that my point undercuts yours by a tad in that you can't start by assuming your conclusion in your premise if you can't ignore that you have to have players to have player roles.  I guess I could look the other way and let you have the argument that GMs are unique things that must exist before anything else for a game to form and then later change to a role assigned to a player in a game.

But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and _then _figured out who was going to GM.  Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it.  I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 26, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Eh. I think a lot of the dispute goes back to the original .... _framing _(heh) of the post. Is the DM the most important person at the table?
> 
> That's a lot like asking, "Is the host the most important person at the party?"
> 
> ...



Does the host have more obligation?  That seems assumed, right in the middle, even after you lampshaded potlucks.  What 'more' obligation does a host have?  Let's agree that in a traditional party, the host does have more obligation.  I'm good with that -- they invite people, clean house, provide snacks, maybe a theme, what-have-you -- but is that always the case?  Are all parties traditional like this?  Can a party be spontaneous, where the host has no obligations other than letting the party happen?  Sure, that can happen -- we've either all been there or at least seen it on TV, right?  The host has almost no obligations here, they're almost a unwilling party, if some TV and movie excesses are to be believed.

But, that's not very useful.  So, let's look at the potluck again.  Here, the host definitely does have obligation, if nothing other than to invite people and put out some means of determining what's brought.  That can be heavy or light, depending -- the host could ask for specific dishes or categories from each person individually or might just throw up a sign up sheet where people self-identify what they're bringing.  So, still, some obligation there.  And, the host is usually obligated to ensure there's adequate space and dinnerware available (at least, that seems to be a usual expectation in the potlucks I've attended).  So, yes, the host has obligations.  But, then what are the obligations of the guests?  They have to prepare food, bring it, and ensure that any special serving needs are met (at least in coordination with the host, but usually it's up to you to bring anything special needed to serve).  And, guests have to partake of what's brought by the other guests, usually with some modicum of manners.  So, guests have some pretty serious obligations as well, and often personal pride on the line.  I mean, I don't skimp when I bring something for a potluck, usually spending more time preparing the meal than I would if I were having it at home.

So, we have somewhat similar levels of obligation.  What happens, then, if that obligation is abrogated?  What if the host fails to provide adequate space or dinnerware?  I've seen this happen at a potluck -- it's usually a bit of a mess, but people make do.  Someone usually runs out to the store and brings back some paper/plastic dinnerware and we eat and have fun.  I suppose, if the host completely abandons everything, and no one else can take the role in a pinch, things do halt.  That's bad, so the host can impact the party pretty heavily.  What about the guests?  If all the guests, or even just enough of them, decide everyone else is bringing food and they're pressed for time/can't be arsed and just show up, what happens?  There's not enough food to go around.  Usually hard feelings.  The host cannot correct for this outside going to the store and buying enough food, which utterly screws the host.  If everyone decides to not bring food, just show up to eat, then there's no party at all.  So, it appears the guests can impact the party pretty heavily as well.  Heck, just bringing one poorly cooked plate that gets everyone sick does a pretty good job of wrecking the party.

Right, well, now were at analogies, and how they're bad, but I tried to deal very fairly with yours.  It holds up in a good number of places, but does try to lampshade where it doesn't and ignore that you can have a potluck party where both host and guests have pretty equal obligations, even if they are different.  If either side abrogates, you're left with a bad or no party.  So, what happens?  Well, it appears that most GMs are afraid of having the party fail because of bad guests, so they don't throw potlucks and instead choose to throw parties that don't rely on the players to have a party -- all the players need to is show up and eat the GM's food.  And, yeah, that's most parties (I suppose I can just say games, now, the analogy's worn through), and it's largely because we've done a good job training players to just show up and play in our games.  But, it doesn't _have _to be that way, you can throw a potluck.  It is, ultimately, a choice.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If that's confusing the issue, I'm all for an anarchy of befuddlement.  I mean, really, it seems your point of contention is that my point undercuts yours by a tad in that you can't start by assuming your conclusion in your premise if you can't ignore that you have to have players to have player roles.  I guess I could look the other way and let you have the argument that GMs are unique things that must exist before anything else for a game to form and then later change to a role assigned to a player in a game.




And if you have to resort to the type of pedantry where suddenly you don't understand or choose not to acknowledge that player and GM have been used as two different types of participants in a roleplaying game for the entire conversation up to this point... there's not much left for us to say to one another. So yeah, whatevs you win buddy. 



Ovinomancer said:


> But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and _then _figured out who was going to GM.  Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it.  I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?




I haven't commented on your personal experience at all so not sure what your point is here and honestly I'm a little tired of trying to figure it out so I'll bow out of this conversation... again your anecdotal experience must be the experience of the majority so you win.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> And if you have to resort to the type of pedantry where suddenly you don't understand or choose not to acknowledge that player and GM have been used as two different types of participants in a roleplaying game for the entire conversation up to this point... there's not much left for us to say to one another. So yeah, whatevs you win buddy.



I don't understand this.  GM and Player are both roles assigned to players of a game.  I'm not entirely sure why you keep saying I don't understand the difference.  Is it because Player and player are similar?  Fine, let's go with GM and Player only as roles and dispense with any concept that we have players with roles and just treat them as the Roles -- independent and unique.  Where does that leave us?  Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game.  That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned.  Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next.  There's already a game agreed to without having a GM.  So, even if we go with your argument, it's doesn't hold water.




> I haven't commented on your personal experience at all so not sure what your point is here and honestly I'm a little tired of trying to figure it out so I'll bow out of this conversation... again your anecdotal experience must be the experience of the majority so you win.



Never made that claim.  You made a blanket statement of fact. I initially tried to make a humorous comment to show that it's not actually as blanket as you were presenting it.  Now, I showed it doesn't hold in at least one case.  That shows that, despite any assumed majority (nice that you get to claim it's on your side), it's not a blanket statement of fact.  End of point.  You've seemingly been on a mission to accuse me of many different things for daring to contest a blanket statement I knew to not be true through personal experience.  Never once claimed my experience was universal or even shared.  Go back, look at what I said.  You've made a choice, and that wasn't to engage with what I said, but to fight it, no matter what.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't understand this.  GM and Player are both roles assigned to players of a game.  I'm not entirely sure why you keep saying I don't understand the difference.  Is it because Player and player are similar?  Fine, let's go with GM and Player only as roles and dispense with any concept that we have players with roles and just treat them as the Roles -- independent and unique.  Where does that leave us?  Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game.  That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned.  Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next.  There's already a game agreed to without having a GM.  So, even if we go with your argument, it's doesn't hold water.
> 
> 
> 
> Never made that claim.  You made a blanket statement of fact. I initially tried to make a humorous comment to show that it's not actually as blanket as you were presenting it.  Now, I showed it doesn't hold in at least one case.  That shows that, despite any assumed majority (nice that you get to claim it's on your side), it's not a blanket statement of fact.  End of point.  You've seemingly been on a mission to accuse me of many different things for daring to contest a blanket statement I knew to not be true through personal experience.  Never once claimed my experience was universal or even shared.  Go back, look at what I said.  You've made a choice, and that wasn't to engage with what I said, but to fight it, no matter what.





Congratulations again you've proven something that most of us already know (and I said quite a while back)... that nothing in the world is 100%... this is exactly why some of us were advocating a discussion around the majority or most popular behavior(s) because otherwise you get an endless stream of posts about how whatever you state doesn't hold for 100% of the hobby, even if it holds for 99.9%... and no actual discussion.  Like I said you win there's always an exception.  Glad you were able to teach us all that.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Your argument was the you have to have GM before you have a game.



Yeah, that'd be my argument too; as I've never seen it done any other way. 



> That still doesn't jive with the example I gave of people getting together after agreeing to play a game and then determining what game and what roles are assigned.



Again, never happened IME.

Here the GM will often spend a long time (as in, many months) in worldbuilding, rules wrangling, and other various prep before even getting to the point of inviting players in.  And even in cases where the pre-game prep has been quite short (as in, a few weeks or even less) it still comes down to a GM inviting players in.



> Or having a game finish and then having the same group decide what's up next.



Closest I've ever come to this was when I was running a game and another GM took it over more or less on the fly with the same party, PCs, and backstory; with me becoming a player.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> a minor detail created in the moment I thought of as throw away is suddenly something they want to leverage three sessions later



If this occurs, often the notes _the players_ took will be adequate, won't they? I mean, they're not going to try and leverage stuff they didn't know about or have forgotten about.

If everyone's memory is a bit hazy (that happens sometimes at my table) then a collective conversation can hash out the details.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> So as long as you adopt a particular playstyle (player driven vs. DM driven) DM/GM'ing isn't harder than playing and it isn't a more important role than a player... Does that sum it up or am I misunderstanding something?




If you want to frame it that way.  Sure.  I can see it.  



> This in turn means you need to find a specific type of player willing to take on some of the DM'ing responsibilities (of course their reason for playing as opposed to running could be that they don't want to take on said responsibilities), which may in and of itself (because it's not the traditional/expected way to play D&D) be hard or nearly impossible.




Then that player is a garbage player who I'd rather not see in the hobby.  If you're not willing to put forth the effort in order to ensure that the group has a great game, then, well, go play video games.  I agree that this is the tradition way D&D has been presented.  I think that it has been a massive disservice to the hobby to present it that way.



> You need to be good at heavy improv (a skill not everyone posseses as well as being a style many may not enjoy) since you're not doing any planning but instead letting the players drive.




Tweet.  Foul on the field.  False dichotomy.  Ten yard penalty, repeat third down.    No one said "you're not doing any planning".  That's a mistake in interpreting what I said.  Allowing the players to take some of the burden does not mean that they take all of it.



> As a DM/GM you need to be able to take pretty extensive notes while playing since you're effectively making stuff up as you go, unless consistency isn't a worry. I just don't see this as necessarily easier just different and harder than playing in different ways from running in a traditional manner.  I also don't see how this eliminates the DM as the most important role...




Again, why are you relying on the DM for that?  Why aren't players taking notes?  We have wiki's for a reason.  It's not 1976 anymore.  Every player should be contributing notes (presumably if you have a note heavy game) after a session because every player should be invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly.  A player that wants to passively consume D&D is far, far better served by a CRPG than any tabletop game.   Pony up time.  The free ride is over.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> <snip>
> 
> But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and _then _figured out who was going to GM.  Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it.  I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?




Sure! I've seen a group of people become interested in playing, get together, and work out the logistics.

I've also seen (and been in) groups that had exactly the same enthusiasm get together and then sputter out and go on to separate activities.  The difference?  No one wanted to GM.

It's almost as if... a certain role is necessary and important for a viable  group to be able to form and function.  Without it, the group morphs into a different activity or splits apart.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 26, 2020)

_Generally_ the GM attempts to organise a table, hosts, invites/introduces people into the hobby, purchases the necessary RPG books, introduces new RPGs to their playgroup, is involved in some sort of prep for sessions, perhaps updates an online page about the campaign, keeps notes, attempts to build a cohesive story, keeps the momentum going by organising dates, runs the game and is the referee. Yeah, not the most important.  

Feel free to provide us with your anecdotal evidence in an attempt to reflect something contrary to the use of my word _Generally._


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Sadras said:


> _Generally_ the GM attempts to organise a table, hosts, invites/introduces people into the hobby, purchases the necessary RPG books, introduces new RPGs to their playgroup, is involved in some sort of prep for sessions, perhaps updates an online page about the campaign, keeps notes, attempts to build a cohesive story, keeps the momentum going by organising dates, runs the game and is the referee. Yeah, not the most important.
> 
> Feel free to provide us with your anecdotal evidence in an attempt to reflect something contrary to the use of my word _Generally._




I don't think anyone is disputing that.  That's certainly how D&D is presented and always has been.  That's what Gygax and co did back in the day - whether Castle Greyhawk or whatever.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of DMing advice in Dragon Magazine, stretching back to pretty much day 1 that says that what you just outlined above is the way it is done.  

The problem is, that procedure isn't necessarily the best approach to gaming.  It's the first way it was done and, let's be honest, it works.  So, it largely doesn't get examined too much, at least, not in mainstream RPG's.  It isn't until fairly recently that you start seeing games building into the game itself the notion that it's not the GM's responsiblity to do 99% of the work.  Games like Blades in the Dark, or various other games now, are approaching the notion of "campaign" from a very different angle where the players work collaboratively with the GM to build a campaign together.

And, frankly, I think it really has done a disservice to the hobby to maintain that paradigm where the DM takes on all that workload.  There's no reason for it really.  It certainly doesn't HAVE to be that way.  It would be good if gaming advice, and things like the DMG, would present the material in such a way that you are encouraged to share the work amongst everyone at the table.  Heck, even the notion that you have a DM's Guide and a Player's Handbook is somewhat the problem.  Teach players that they are equally responsible for the game and the game will be 1000 times better for it.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I don't think anyone is disputing that.  That's certainly how D&D is presented and always has been.  That's what Gygax and co did back in the day - whether Castle Greyhawk or whatever.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of DMing advice in Dragon Magazine, stretching back to pretty much day 1 that says that what you just outlined above is the way it is done.
> 
> The problem is, that procedure isn't necessarily the best approach to gaming.  It's the first way it was done and, let's be honest, it works.  So, it largely doesn't get examined too much, at least, not in mainstream RPG's.  It isn't until fairly recently that you start seeing games building into the game itself the notion that it's not the GM's responsiblity to do 99% of the work.  Games like Blades in the Dark, or various other games now, are approaching the notion of "campaign" from a very different angle where the players work collaboratively with the GM to build a campaign together.
> 
> And, frankly, I think it really has done a disservice to the hobby to maintain that paradigm where the DM takes on all that workload.  There's no reason for it really.  It certainly doesn't HAVE to be that way.  It would be good if gaming advice, and things like the DMG, would present the material in such a way that you are encouraged to share the work amongst everyone at the table.  Heck, even the notion that you have a DM's Guide and a Player's Handbook is somewhat the problem.  Teach players that they are equally responsible for the game and the game will be 1000 times better for it.




So go ahead. Give us some advice on this subject grounded in D&D 5E.How should the players be equally responsible? In what way? I just spent four hours making my groups next adventure. How do I get each player to put in there four hours?What do they spend that time doing? How does a player become equally responsible?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 26, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, that'd be my argument too; as I've never seen it done any other way.
> 
> Again, never happened IME.
> 
> ...



Yeah, this has been my experience as well. When a campaign ends, we ask "Okay, who wants to run the next game?" The new GM will then propose what they are interested in running (or poll the group, if they don't have any ideas).

I'm not suggesting that there aren't groups that do so differently, just that it's never been the case for any of my groups.


pemerton said:


> If this occurs, often the notes _the players_ took will be adequate, won't they? I mean, they're not going to try and leverage stuff they didn't know about or have forgotten about.
> 
> If everyone's memory is a bit hazy (that happens sometimes at my table) then a collective conversation can hash out the details.



It's less than ideal if you're trying to build long term story lines but might not remember an important detail in the moment. For example, in one of my groups two of the players went on their honeymoon recently, so we didn't play. There had been some scheduling issues prior to that as well (Superbowl, etc.) so last weekend was the first time we gamed in over a month and I was really shakey on the details. 

Thankfully, I was able to skim over my session notes and remind myself of everything that had transpired that I consider relevant to the campaign. If a player had taken the notes, they might not even have been available to me between sessions, and even had they been it would have been totally up to fate whether they'd grok'd all of the relevant details or skipped something that seemed trivial then but would bear fruit down the road (I like to use foreshadowing). 

For example, in the session before last they met an old miner 49er NPC who I made up on the spot. The party paladin took a liking to him, and after a brief conversation, gave him a 50 gp gem to fund his next expedition. They're only 3rd level, so that's a lot of money to him (he's still saving for plate mail). A month of two down the line though, he's going to find that the miner has hit it rich, and is quite grateful to the paladin. I'd never remember such a minor detail without my notes. The paladin player might note it down, but if another player were taking notes they could easily think a minor NPC like that were merely set dressing.

There are some tasks that I might consider offloading to my players because they aren't critical. Like initiative. Although I wouldn't actually offload initiative because I have a streamlined system that wouldn't benefit from it. 

Never my notes though. In a real sense my notes are my game (or at least a very significant portion thereof). 

I suppose it is fundamentally a choice, but to me it is a choice between running a better game and a worse game, and that's really no choice at all.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> So go ahead. Give us some advice on this subject grounded in D&D 5E.How should the players be equally responsible? In what way? I just spent four hours making my groups next adventure. How do I get each player to put in there four hours?What do they spend that time doing? How does a player become equally responsible?



I'm going to gloss over the salt in your post and toss off a couple of ideas. In the Dresden RPG, building the city that will be the primary setting for the game is done collaboratively. All the players and the GM take on some sections of the city and building some of the fiction fiction about how they work, who the important people are, and how it connects to the rest of the setting. This allows players to build specific foes or concepts into the setting that they're interested in, and also allows for a better level of area knowledge and also more investment in the setting from the players. The GM takes that initial work and sands off the rough edges. It's awesome for a sandbox urban setting.

An artifact of current RPG design that appears in 5e and mostly doesn't get used, or used to great effect, is the Inspiration mechanic. Mostly because it's a crap mechanic really, but also because it feels bolted on and not terribly useful. However, what it is the most like is some of the mechanics from games like FATE that are designed to leverage the characters' motivations and goals to drive the engine of the fiction. If you buff those rules up, and leverage them harder, both during character creation and in-game, the result at the table is something closer to FATE if you get player buy-in, which is more character driven decision making and pulling player agency to the front of the game, which is useful is a million different ways. To speak directly to your question the increase in character agency tends to mean the characters are more focused on actual goals of their own rather than just following the trail of breadcrumbs left by the DM. This can take the narrative off on lots of different interesting paths where the DM can just let the character decision making drive what happens next.

Exactly what that above idea looks like at an individual table will depend on your goals for the campaign. You can use more or less FATE (or whatever) depending on how much sandbox you want. The stronger the characters the cooler sandbox games tend to be. What D&D lacks is any real motivation for the player to build a really strong character with a well defined set of goals and motivations. Other RPGS have some great tools to make that better.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm going to gloss over the salt in your post and toss off a couple of ideas. In the Dresden RPG, building the city that will be the primary setting for the game is done collaboratively. All the players and the GM take on some sections of the city and building some of the fiction fiction about how they work, who the important people are, and how it connects to the rest of the setting. This allows players to build specific foes or concepts into the setting that they're interested in, and also allows for a better level of area knowledge and also more investment in the setting from the players. The GM takes that initial work and sands off the rough edges. It's awesome for a sandbox urban setting.
> 
> An artifact of current RPG design that appears in 5e and mostly doesn't get used, or used to great effect, is the Inspiration mechanic. Mostly because it's a crap mechanic really, but also because it feels bolted on and not terribly useful. However, what it is the most like is some of the mechanics from games like FATE that are designed to leverage the characters' motivations and goals to drive the engine of the fiction. If you buff those rules up, and leverage them harder, both during character creation and in-game, the result at the table is something closer to FATE if you get player buy-in, which is more character driven decision making and pulling player agency to the front of the game, which is useful is a million different ways. To speak directly to your question the increase in character agency tends to mean the characters are more focused on actual goals of their own rather than just following the trail of breadcrumbs left by the DM. This can take the narrative off on lots of different interesting paths where the DM can just let the character decision making drive what happens next.
> 
> Exactly what that above idea looks like at an individual table will depend on your goals for the campaign. You can use more or less FATE (or whatever) depending on how much sandbox you want. The stronger the characters the cooler sandbox games tend to be. What D&D lacks is any real motivation for the player to build a really strong character with a well defined set of goals and motivations. Other RPGS have some great tools to make that better.




He specifically requested ideas for a running 5e game.  That some versions of FATE use collaborative world-building is pretty useless in that context.  Buffing inspiration may be a worthwhile endeavour for many reasons, but it isn't going to provide a multi-hour per session outlet for every player.  Nor are the players likely to _want_ a multi-hour prep-time to play the game.

5e, like other editions of D&D has game conceits that include player exploratory play.  Now you _can_ bend, spindle, and fold the game engine to remove player exploratory play in favour of table exploratory play ("play to see what happens" a la FATE, Burning Wheel, or Dungeonworld), but the game tends not to act or feel the same (pretty much by definition).

You tend to lose site maps, pre-placed encounters, and thus any form of foreshadowing and meaningful player strategy based on discerned context, especially compared to sandbox play.  AP play is easier to emulate.  Which may or may not be too great a sacrifice for the table.  It is for me as a player.

5e provides none of the tools found in games where that is a specific design choice.  That makes it a pretty poor cousin in comparison to games where it is the normal play.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm going to gloss over the salt in your post and toss off a couple of ideas. In the Dresden RPG, building the city that will be the primary setting for the game is done collaboratively. All the players and the GM take on some sections of the city and building some of the fiction fiction about how they work, who the important people are, and how it connects to the rest of the setting. This allows players to build specific foes or concepts into the setting that they're interested in, and also allows for a better level of area knowledge and also more investment in the setting from the players. The GM takes that initial work and sands off the rough edges. It's awesome for a sandbox urban setting.




I tried that, when I ran Fate, and I think part of my frustration with the game was that there were players who ... didn't *seem* to have ideas they could articulate, and I think part of my frustration was that if/when someone other than me *did* have an idea they could articulate, it was something that wouldn't have been in my top fifty-ish things I would have put in a setting I was going to run--it felt kinda like a writing prompt, and I've *never* liked writing prompts, even when I was trying to be a writer.



Fenris-77 said:


> An artifact of current RPG design that appears in 5e and mostly doesn't get used, or used to great effect, is the Inspiration mechanic. Mostly because it's a crap mechanic really, but also because it feels bolted on and not terribly useful. However, what it is the most like is some of the mechanics from games like FATE that are designed to leverage the characters' motivations and goals to drive the engine of the fiction. If you buff those rules up, and leverage them harder, both during character creation and in-game, the result at the table is something closer to FATE if you get player buy-in, which is more character driven decision making and pulling player agency to the front of the game, which is useful is a million different ways. To speak directly to your question the increase in character agency tends to mean the characters are more focused on actual goals of their own rather than just following the trail of breadcrumbs left by the DM. This can take the narrative off on lots of different interesting paths where the DM can just let the character decision making drive what happens next.




Yeah. Inspiration as presented in 5E is definitely garbage. I've found that if the players give me decent hooks in their backstories, I can set those in the campaign; once there have been some events, I can often tie new things to previous things. I find that to work at least as well as hitting someone's Aspects, and honestly, it seems less predictable to me.

The characters/players in my campaigns have a good deal of agency, I think. In the longer-running ampaign, there are three or four threads wafting about, and they're working on them kinda piecemeal. I *think* I know where they're going to go after they finish the short thread they're on now, but I could be wrong; if they go outside where I feel comfortable ad-libbing, I'll end the session so I can get some stuff prepared so I feel comfortable running it (mainly a matter of thinking stuff through so it fits, rather than fitting it together after the fact, which always feels kinda retconnish to me). Yeah, I guess one could describe my approach as kinda breadcrumby, but the crumbs go in several directions.



Fenris-77 said:


> Exactly what that above idea looks like at an individual table will depend on your goals for the campaign. You can use more or less FATE (or whatever) depending on how much sandbox you want. The stronger the characters the cooler sandbox games tend to be. What D&D lacks is any real motivation for the player to build a really strong character with a well defined set of goals and motivations. Other RPGS have some great tools to make that better.




I think the impulse to create a character with well-defined goals and motivations comes from the player. There was a whole large other thread that at least started from about here, but there are several players (I'm one) whose experiences lead them to say something along the lines of "You can do that in just about any system." I think 5E does fine at this, if the players (and DM) want it to.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Then that player is a garbage player who I'd rather not see in the hobby.  If you're not willing to put forth the effort in order to ensure that the group has a great game, then, well, go play video games.  I agree that this is the tradition way D&D has been presented.  I think that it has been a massive disservice to the hobby to present it that way.




So not wanting to take on the responsibilities of a DM... and being transparent about this by choosing not to DM but instead be a player is...a garbage player.  Yeah IMO...something seems off with this logic.  If I choose to be a player and not run a game... I'm not sure that because I don't want to create fiction, frame scenes, build worlds, decide consequences for characters, etc... that makes me a garbage player... furthermore I think if that became the norm then there would be a lot less players in the hobby than there are now, I'd argue that rather than a disservice D&D probably came up with the best way to introduce the game to and get new people to join the hobby.  Just because it doesn't line up with your preferences doesn't make it in any way objectively bad.





Hussar said:


> Tweet.  Foul on the field.  False dichotomy.  Ten yard penalty, repeat third down.   No one said "you're not doing any planning". That's a mistake in interpreting what I said. Allowing the players to take some of the burden does not mean that they take all of it.




Perhaps it would help if you specified then exactly what responsibilities you feel a player should take on in order to avoid being a garbage player...




Hussar said:


> Again, why are you relying on the DM for that?  Why aren't players taking notes?  We have wiki's for a reason.  It's not 1976 anymore.  Every player should be contributing notes (presumably if you have a note heavy game) after a session because every player should be invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly.  A player that wants to passively consume D&D is far, far better served by a CRPG than any tabletop game.   Pony up time.  The free ride is over.




Hmmm.... I wonder how effective it would be to introduce and retain new players if I told them they were responsible for note taking and maintaining a wiki for our weekly game of imagination... I wouldn't play in a game that required that of me and since the DM is the one introducing stuff I would expect him to not only have an account of the game but (due to differences in perception, mistakes, misunderstandings,etc) have the most accurate account of what happened.  In my game there are 2 players who generally take notes but even they can miss something important, misinterpret something or whatever and if that happens they turn to the GM's account to correct their own.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> So go ahead. Give us some advice on this subject grounded in D&D 5E.How should the players be equally responsible? In what way? I just spent four hours making my groups next adventure. How do I get each player to put in there four hours?What do they spend that time doing? How does a player become equally responsible?




Well, firstly, if the players are actively engaged and responsible, you shouldn't have to put in four hours of work.  So, that's a bit of an issue.

But, let's take a standard dungeon crawl.  I forget what it's called now, but, I did see a system where the players each contributed a section of the dungeon.  As a group. you decide what the dungeon's general theme is, and then each player goes off and builds a section.  The DM then takes that and makes changes.  Every change the DM makes adds a d4 to a pool (IIIRC, it was 1d4 for a small change up to a 3d4 for a big one) which the players can use to add to any die roll as they proceed through the dungeon.  

Poof, ten, fifteen hours of play, 1 hour of prep for the DM.  Sure, each player has a pretty good idea what's in the section they designed, but, since the DM has made changes, nothing is for sure.

Now, make that prettier, dress it up with some better language, and away you go.

It's not like these ideas are alien to the hobby.  They are there.  They just haven't really been incorporated into D&D, mostly because of attitudes like @Imaro's below.  ((See my next post for my response to @Imaro))


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> If that's confusing the issue, I'm all for an anarchy of befuddlement.  I mean, really, it seems your point of contention is that my point undercuts yours by a tad in that you can't start by assuming your conclusion in your premise if you can't ignore that you have to have players to have player roles.  I guess I could look the other way and let you have the argument that GMs are unique things that must exist before anything else for a game to form and then later change to a role assigned to a player in a game.
> 
> But, that kinda goes against my experience, where I've been in a group that got together to figure out what game we're going to play, and _then _figured out who was going to GM.  Or, after my group has finished up with a game, been part of the discussion as the players discussed what's next and who's up to run it.  I suppose we were wrong, and the GM came first, we just didn't notice?



I've skipped some posts, so I have to ask why any of that matters.  This thread is a discussion about which person/role in the *group* is most important or which role in the *group* is the most difficult.  The premise of this thread presumes the DM and players and their respective roles are already present and have been chosen.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> So not wanting to take on the responsibilities of a DM... and being transparent about this by choosing not to DM but instead be a player is...a garbage player.  Yeah IMO...something seems off with this logic.  If I choose to be a player and not run a game... I'm not sure that because I don't want to create fiction, decide consequences for my character, etc... that makes me a garbage player... furthermore I think if that became the norm then there would be a lot less players in the hobby than there are now, I'd argue that rather than a disservice D&D probably came up with the best way to introduce the game to and get new people to join.  Now because it doesn't line up with your preferences doesn't make it in any way objectively bad.




If you don't want to contribute to the game, why are you here?  If all you want to do is passively lap up whatever the DM is serving, passively sitting there, why are you playing an RPG?  You can get a FAR better experience in a video game.  It's objectively bad because as we see in this thread, passive players dominate the hobby and the notion of actually having to contribute more than being a warm blooded dice bot is horrific.   I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who think that my function, as DM, is to provide for their entertainment.  



> Perhaps it would help if you specified then exactly what responsibilities you feel a player should take on in order to avoid being a garbage player...




Well, how about ANY.  How about doing more than just showing up, session after session, passively consuming whatever the DM has brought that week, expecting the DM to spend 4 hours a week to provide entertainment for the group, all the while contributing nothing more than a warm seat and a waft of Cheetos.

Take notes.  Keep a wiki.  Track what's going on session to session.  Provide material for the DM.  Step up with goals, family, ties, enemies, and whatever else for the DM.  

IOW, stop being a passive consumer.


> Hmmm.... I wonder how effective it would be to introduce and retain new players if I told them they were responsible for note taking and maintaining a wiki for our weekly game of imagination... I wouldn't play in a game that required that of me and since the DM is the one introducing stuff I would expect him to not only have an account of the game but (due to differences in perception, mistakes, misunderstandings,etc) have the most accurate account.




Yup, and that's the problem right there.  The notion that there is a "most accurate account".  The expectation that the DM is the one to do all the work introducing stuff.  Why aren't you introducing things?  Why aren't you triggering actions?  Why aren't you the one driving the action in the game?  The whole point of playing an RPG is the freedom to choose.  Yet, if all you want to choose is whatever the DM is placing in front of you, you're far better served playing a video game than an RPG.  

You have the freedom to do virtually anything in an RPG.  Yet, most players figure that it's far better to passively consume the game and expect the DM to provide everything.  It's such a poison in the hobby.  So much wasted effort.

Look, I'm not saying that the DM should do nothing.  Of course not.  That was the misinterpretation I pointed to earlier.  But, I am saying that good players get off their asses and actually contribute and lift some of the work load off the DM.  I have very little patience anymore for passive consumer players.  They just suck all the air out of the game.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, let's take a standard dungeon crawl.  I forget what it's called now, but, I did see a system where the players each contributed a section of the dungeon.  As a group. you decide what the dungeon's general theme is, and then each player goes off and builds a section.  The DM then takes that and makes changes.  Every change the DM makes adds a d4 to a pool (IIIRC, it was 1d4 for a small change up to a 3d4 for a big one) which the players can use to add to any die roll as they proceed through the dungeon.
> 
> Poof, ten, fifteen hours of play, 1 hour of prep for the DM.  Sure, each player has a pretty good idea what's in the section they designed, but, since the DM has made changes, nothing is for sure.





So now instead of just scheduling time for the game we need to also coordinate time to get together for prep... I still have to modify the dungeon (which I have to ask isn't this the same as pulling a dungeon of the internet an modifying it?)... with the added detriment to exploratory play that my players collectively have a pretty good idea of what's in 3/4ths of the dungeon... unless I modify heavily which in turn takes more time.  Also how far does this go?  Do players decide what monsters are in the dungeon?  What treasures they get?  Where or what traps are located there?  Do they set up social encounters?  And if so I now need time to familiarize myself with the things they've set up...and that's ignoring the issues around consistency that could arise.

In other words I am failing to see how this greatly diminishes the workload in an exploratory game without it again morphing into a different playstyle...


----------



## jasper (Feb 26, 2020)

Sadras said:


> _Generally_ the GM attempts to organise a table, hosts, invites/introduces people into the hobby, purchases the necessary RPG books, introduces new RPGs to their playgroup, is involved in some sort of prep for sessions, perhaps updates an online page about the campaign, keeps notes, attempts to build a cohesive story, keeps the momentum going by organising dates, runs the game and is the referee. Yeah, not the most important.
> 
> Feel free to provide us with your anecdotal evidence in an attempt to reflect something contrary to the use of my word _Generally._



Well the General (Never mind not in the army any more. ) Note to nitpickers. If you see the own freely swap out with one or more of the following. Borrow. Steal. Access to. 
As Adventure League DM
1. Organize and announce on FB my tables for the week. 
2. Own the module/adventure.  2B. Have notes on the adventure due to season changes, bad writing, my piece of mind. 
3. Own All books necessary to run AL PC. And carry them to game.  Note. On some I just photocopied the necessary chapter and left the hardcover at home.
4. Own DM supplies. AKA DM screen. Any other supplies the dm need but player does not need.
5. AL Newcomer supplies. Extra Dice. Minis. Pregens. Handouts. 
6. The ability to take input from 3+ people at the same time. 
All the other stuff General Sadras mentioned can be pushed off onto other gamers.  Speaking of pushing off to other gamers. I try to have one player be the monster keeper who tracks the AC and HP of monsters. 
I do for my own creative outlet do post about a 3 page write up of the game. I could just post Module name. Advancement choice. Magic Items and GP.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> If you don't want to contribute to the game, why are you here?




Players contribute to the game in many ways.  YOUR way is only one of them and you are not a "crap player" if they don't play YOUR way.



> If all you want to do is passively lap up whatever the DM is serving, passively sitting there, why are you playing an RPG?




Tweet!  Foul on the field!  False Dichotomy.  10 yard penalty.  Doing things your way and equally building the dungeon or whatever, and sitting passively there are not the only two options.  I can as a player not build jack, but still inform the DM that my PC is going to go north to take over the barbarian tribes and become the high chief of them all.  Then I can go about taking steps to get there.  I don't need to spend as much time as the DM on the game to actively take a role in the game and improve it through game play.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> If you want to frame it that way.  Sure.  I can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now _there_ is a great example of gate-keeping!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Players contribute to the game in many ways.  YOUR way is only one of them and you are not a "crap player" if they don't play YOUR way.
> 
> 
> 
> Tweet!  Foul on the field!  False Dichotomy.  10 yard penalty.  Doing things your way and equally building the dungeon or whatever, and sitting passively there are not the only two options.  I can as a player not build jack, but still inform the DM that my PC is going to go north to take over the barbarian tribes and become the high chief of them all.  Then I can go about taking steps to get there.  I don't need to spend as much time as the DM on the game to actively take a role in the game and improve it through game play.




And, that's FANTASTIC.  You are contributing.  You are proactively doing something - going north to take over the barbarian tribes.  

EXCELLENT.  That's great.  That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Note, @Maxperson, I'd point out that my dungeon thing is only an option.  I was asked for a piece of advice, and I gave it.  It was certainly not meant to be the ONLY thing you could do.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Oh, and the Dirty Dungeon idea that I was looking for can be found here:









						John Wick - The Dirty Dungeon
					

I just found this one.  I know it's a couple of years old, but, seeing as a 20 second Google search didn't turn up any threads on EN World about this, I thought others might like to share.  It's a very interesting idea on dungeon design:  http://youtu.be/dsnvANYBRWo  tl&dr version:  Each player...




					www.enworld.org
				




Fantastic fun.  

-----



> So now instead of just scheduling time for the game we need to also coordinate time to get together for prep... I still have to modify the dungeon (which I have to ask isn't this the same as pulling a dungeon of the internet an modifying it?)... with the added detriment to exploratory play that my players collectively have a pretty good idea of what's in 3/4ths of the dungeon... unless I modify heavily which in turn takes more time. Also how far does this go? Do players decide what monsters are in the dungeon? What treasures they get? Where or what traps are located there? Do they set up social encounters?
> 
> In other words I am failing to see how this greatly diminishes the workload in an exploratory game without it again morphing into a different playstyle...]




Exploratory play is hardly the only style of gaming in the world.  And, since any given player will only know 1/4 of the dungeon, at best, they still get their exploration.

Why on earth would you need to schedule time for prep?  Good grief, you've never heard of email?  A wiki?  I'm not quite sure what you're envisioning, so, follow the link below and you'll see it better.  As far as what they set up, of course they set up everything in their section.  Why wouldn't they?  

It's not like the game doesn't have guidelines for treasure placement.  You'd almost think that we're performing magic.  Making a dungeon crawl isn't exactly rocket science.  Yes, they decide what monsters are there, what treasure is there, where and what traps are there.  Of course.  

But, yeah, I can see how some folks might see this as far too threatening to their authority.  We cannot possible share the workload of DMing because, if we do so, then we have to share some of the authority as well.  Can't possibly have that.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

Why are you presuming that getting material from the players makes the DM's job easier? I'll never know someone else's adventure material (dungeon or otherwise) as well as I know my own, and the better I know it the more comfortable I feel running it. It's not (or it doesn't feel) strictly about sharing authority, at least not for me.

As a different thought: If I'm the only one prepping, there's no need to coordinate anything with anyone; I just need to fit the time for prepping into my life. As someone who preps pen-on-paper, doing part of the prep online just seems as though it would add more work.

I'm not saying DMing is as hard as some people seem to want to make it out to be; I'm not even saying it's hard. I am saying it takes time, and it requires skills that not everyone has (and running homebrew adventures is different from running published adventures, in ways both subtle and not).


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> If you don't want to contribute to the game, why are you here?  If all you want to do is passively lap up whatever the DM is serving, passively sitting there, why are you playing an RPG?  You can get a FAR better experience in a video game.  It's objectively bad because as we see in this thread, passive players dominate the hobby and the notion of actually having to contribute more than being a warm blooded dice bot is horrific.   I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who think that my function, as DM, is to provide for their entertainment.




I am contributing to the game when I play and advocate for my character...  The minute I make a choice I am no longer passively lapping up what the DM is serving or passively sitting there.  I am playing because I enjoy the social interaction, the opportunity for the DM to respond organically to my choices and for my choices to not be confined by what the developers coded as options.

I think there's a disconnect here... Not wanting to take on the responsibilities of a DM does not equate to a being a passive player lapping up whatever the DM is serving.  In playing my character and advocating for them I am in turn adding to your entertainment as a GM.  The fact that you have a particular preference for a certain type of player who participates in a specific playstyle... doesn't make those who don't share your preferences garbage players.   




Hussar said:


> Well, how about ANY.  How about doing more than just showing up, session after session, passively consuming whatever the DM has brought that week, expecting the DM to spend 4 hours a week to provide entertainment for the group, all the while contributing nothing more than a warm seat and a waft of Cheetos.




Well I asked because when I brought some up you said it was a strawman because you didn't specifically say all... so what exactly are we talking about here... or is this just supposed to be a general rant?



Hussar said:


> Take notes.  Keep a wiki.  Track what's going on session to session.  Provide material for the DM.  Step up with goals, family, ties, enemies, and whatever else for the DM.
> 
> IOW, stop being a passive consumer.




You seem to be confusing DM repsonsibilities and player responsibilities (which no one in this thread is arguing against).  I'm finding it hard to follow exactly what you're arguing for. Because no one said players shouldn't take on the responsibilities of a player (creating goals for themselves, ties, etc.) we are discussing them taking on GM responsibilities... so could you clarify?




Hussar said:


> Yup, and that's the problem right there.  The notion that there is a "most accurate account".  The expectation that the DM is the one to do all the work introducing stuff.  Why aren't you introducing things?  Why aren't you triggering actions?  Why aren't you the one driving the action in the game?  The whole point of playing an RPG is the freedom to choose.  Yet, if all you want to choose is whatever the DM is placing in front of you, you're far better served playing a video game than an RPG.




Wait so choosing is creating things?? Those seem like two different things that could possibly be related in some way. A player probably doesn't do those things (at least the ones traditionally in the realm of the DM) because if they wanted to... they'd probably just run a game.



Hussar said:


> You have the freedom to do virtually anything in an RPG.  Yet, most players figure that it's far better to passively consume the game and expect the DM to provide everything.  It's such a poison in the hobby.  So much wasted effort.




Exercising choice does not equate to taking on traditional GM responsibilities... this argument isn't really making any sense at this point.



Hussar said:


> Look, I'm not saying that the DM should do nothing.  Of course not.  That was the misinterpretation I pointed to earlier.  But, I am saying that good players get off their asses and actually contribute and lift some of the work load off the DM.  I have very little patience anymore for passive consumer players.  They just suck all the air out of the game.




Yeah and I think your argument may be a little muddled due to your personal bias... You seem to be arguing for choice and non-passive players but making choices and being non-passive doesn't equate to taking on what are traditionally considered GM responsibilities.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, yeah, I can see how some folks might see this as far too threatening to their authority.  We cannot possible share the workload of DMing because, if we do so, then we have to share some of the authority as well.  Can't possibly have that.




But you can't see why some players just want to play the game and not take on the responsibilities of a GM??


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

Imaro said:


> But you can't see why some players just want to play the game and not take on the responsibilities of a GM??




Heck, one of the guys I game is an excellent player who contributes in all the ways I would want a player to, but when he tried to DM, it tangled up with his anxiety issues in ways that were, I gather, deeply unpleasant for him. Another of the guys I game with is deeply introverted; I gather he has run in the past, and runs occasionally now, but he certainly doesn't seem as though he'd be inclined to run in a gaming store (which both my tables are).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Nagol said:


> He specifically requested ideas for a running 5e game.  That some versions of FATE use collaborative world-building is pretty useless in that context.  Buffing inspiration may be a worthwhile endeavour for many reasons, but it isn't going to provide a multi-hour per session outlet for every player.  Nor are the players likely to _want_ a multi-hour prep-time to play the game.



It was one idea, and it works exactly as advertised. If you don't like, no worries, but it does work, and it would work for 5E. It could be worked at a bunch of different levels on an ongoing basis too, it just depends on what you want out of the idea. You could use to launch an urban-based game, or you could use it at the kingdom or province level to do the same jobs.



Nagol said:


> 5e, like other editions of D&D has game conceits that include player exploratory play.  Now you _can_ bend, spindle, and fold the game engine to remove player exploratory play in favour of table exploratory play ("play to see what happens" a la FATE, Burning Wheel, or Dungeonworld), but the game tends not to act or feel the same (pretty much by definition).



You're making a distinction here between table play and player play that isn't obvious. I'm sure you have a point though, could you expand on that? I don't want to just assume what you mean. I wouldn't define those as oppositional one-or-the-other play states, but you may be.


Nagol said:


> You tend to lose site maps, pre-placed encounters, and thus any form of foreshadowing and meaningful player strategy based on discerned context, especially compared to sandbox play.  AP play is easier to emulate.  Which may or may not be too great a sacrifice for the table.  It is for me as a player.



No you don't, or you don't have to. These things aren't somehow absent in a PbtA or FATE game. We aren't talking about a binary solution here where you're either playing one way or the other. It's a sliding scale, you can decide as the GM or as a table where you want the dial adjusted to before you start the game. It's not rocket science. I don't have any problem dropping prepped encounters into improv-heavy play, and I'm not pretending to be the king of improv. I prep stuff and then drop it out far enough ahead of the characters that it avoids issues of immediate illusionism. 



Nagol said:


> 5e provides none of the tools found in games where that is a specific design choice.  That makes it a pretty poor cousin in comparison to games where it is the normal play.



What tools do you feel like you're lacking? 

In general I think you and I differ a lot on how much bending and folding needs to be done. Also, keep in mind the two suggestions I tossed were off the top of my head. I'm happy to discuss in more detail how to make that happen in 5e, but don't assume because I didn't post in excruciating detail that I don't have something to say about that.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Well, firstly, if the players are actively engaged and responsible, you shouldn't have to put in four hours of work.  So, that's a bit of an issue.
> 
> But, let's take a standard dungeon crawl.  I forget what it's called now, but, I did see a system where the players each contributed a section of the dungeon.  As a group. you decide what the dungeon's general theme is, and then each player goes off and builds a section.  The DM then takes that and makes changes.  Every change the DM makes adds a d4 to a pool (IIIRC, it was 1d4 for a small change up to a 3d4 for a big one) which the players can use to add to any die roll as they proceed through the dungeon.
> 
> ...




See, as a DM I would hate that. And as a player, I wouldn’t find it fun.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> It was one idea, and it works exactly as advertised. If you don't like, no worries, but it does work, and it would work for 5E. It could be worked at a bunch of different levels on an ongoing basis too, it just depends on what you want out of the idea. You could use to launch an urban-based game, or you could use it at the kingdom or province level to do the same jobs.



It doesn't help an established running game.  You know, the one already in a created world?  It _might_ help prior to starting a game, like the way Dresden Files presents the option.  But, once  a game is running and has an established world, further world-building by all participants doesn't reduce workload.



> You're making a distinction here between table play and player play that isn't obvious. I'm sure you have a point though, could you expand on that? I don't want to just assume what you mean. I wouldn't define those as oppositional one-or-the-other play states, but you may be.




Player exploratory play (often described using the derogatory "Mother may I") involves the players poking and prodding at environments looking for clues as to how the environment holds together and how they can wring advantage/profit from it.  The general conceit is the designer has created an interesting environment that the GM will present and adjudicate actions taken within.  The players will explore it.

Table exploratory play is more like (many) games of FATE, Dungeonworld, and the ilk.  No one at the table knows in advance what exists and play often is about "What is there and what do the PCs do with it?"



> No you don't, or you don't have to. These things aren't somehow absent in a PbtA or FATE game. We aren't talking about a binary solution here where you're either playing one way or the other. It's a sliding scale, you can decide as the GM or as a table where you want the dial adjusted to before you start the game. It's not rocket science. I don't have any problem dropping prepped encounters into improv-heavy play, and I'm not pretending to be the king of improv. I prep stuff and then drop it out far enough ahead of the characters that it avoids issues of immediate illusionism.



The tendancy is you do lose pre-created content because the point of table exploratory play is to present and react directly off what the PCs do while maintaining pressure forcing them to react/act again.  The general advice in most such games is to create minimally. "Maps with holes" is a line from Dungeonworld, for example.  You tend not to put much time into pre-generated encounters because there is little to no indication that any such will end up used.  A hard failure near the entrance can shift the adventure away from the dungeon completely.  Putting together a 25-room dungeon with creatures and treasures works directly against that premise.

That's why table exploratory play can gut prep time.  You aren't working with a solid environment.  It is fluid until the PCs touch it.



> What tools do you feel like you're lacking?



Geez, what tools does it even have?

It is missing a strong system for controlling DM lead-by-nose-itis.
It is missing a strong system to handling non-combat challenges.
It is missing a strong system to support scaling success and failure to help the DM gauge momentum.
It is missing a system for the players to inject content.
It is missing any advice on how to run and how to play in such an environment.



> In general I think you and I differ a lot on how much bending and folding needs to be done. Also, keep in mind the two suggestions I tossed were off the top of my head. I'm happy to discuss in more detail how to make that happen in 5e, but don't assume because I didn't post in excruciating detail that I don't have something to say about that.




It isn't too hard to emulate a structured adventure path style of game.  It is _really_ hard to emulate a sandbox.  It is also quite hard to run a dungeon on-the-fly with players that take advantage of all the various scouting options and specifically seek advantage. Not hard so much as the amount of time available for thought limits the on-the-spot creator from building connections and dropping appropriate clues as to what is around the next corner.  Those clues are vital in a game strongly oriented to player exploratory play.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

macd21 said:


> See, as a DM I would hate that. And as a player, I wouldn’t find it fun.




Well then, you obviously shouldn't be in the hobby! /s


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> So go ahead. Give us some advice on this subject grounded in D&D 5E.How should the players be equally responsible? In what way? I just spent four hours making my groups next adventure. How do I get each player to put in there four hours?What do they spend that time doing? How does a player become equally responsible?




What did you spend your four hours doing? What kind of adventure did you craft? I don't think we can give specifics without understanding that.

More generally, I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly. I wouldn't ever expect there to be a 1:1 ratio for the amount of prep between GM: Player, but it can definitely ease the burden.

If the players are helping to craft and populate the world, then the Gm doesn't have to do all of that. The players will have provided NPCs, Factions, Locations, and other elements that the GM can use to shape their adventures. The best part is that the players have literally said "This interests me" when they're adding these elements to the fiction. Depending on the nature of your game, you can go as big or as small as you need to with this....it can be an entire world that gets mapped out ahead of time, or a small town and it's nearby surroundings. Whatever works for the group.

If the players do this, then very likely their characters will also be as carefully crafted, and will be far more likely to feel as if they exist in this world that you've made. They will have existing connections....family, friends, co-workers, rivals....and existing goals and desires. These give the GM even more material to draw from in order to craft the adventures.

The players may even initiate the kind of adventure they'd like to go on. They may finish up one adventure, and then say "Hey, we got a lead on the fighter's missing brother.....let's look into that" and then the GM has an idea for what to do next, and the players feel more proactive about the game. They feel like they are actually driving the fiction because they're helping to determine what happens next instead of waiting for the next thing to come along.

None of this eliminates the need for the GM to have input. But it can certainly ease the burden greatly. It can also help focus play, and place clear goals and points of interest into the setting well ahead of time.

Again, this is general. If you can clarify how you spent your four hours, I might have some more specific advise for you.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Again, this is general. If you can clarify how you spent your four hours, I might have some more specific advise for you.




I can't say exactly how @GameOgre spent their prep time, but I can tell what I do during mine. It's not usually four hours, but it's usually more than two. I've never broken down how long anything takes, but things include:

Working out the likely results of what the characters seem likely to do, given where they are in whatever story thread they're running down. If there are facts that need to emerge, now is when I like to figure out what those facts are. If there are people they're likely to meet, now is when I like to figure those out, too. This is also when I figure out things that are likely to happen around the characters. In my every-other-Saturday campaign, this meant working out who the various members of the cabal of diabolists were in the city, and why they were working in the service of that archdevil; it meant working out what the characters were likely to find based on likely paths/choices; it meant working out what the cabal was likely to to do if they found out the party were looking for them (and if they didn't); it meant writing up index cards for the various devils they were likely to summon (since I'm not DMing at home, I prefer not to tote my Monster Manual around, to save at least a little weight). If there's going to be a treasure hoard, this is when I prefer to generate that (because I have extra homebrew and third-party stuff, I prefer to generate it at home).

There's usually some amount of ... germination, or something, where before I sit down to write stuff up (or down), I think about things for a while. That tends to start right after the session.

In the session, there was some figuring out what a given person they met knew, and roleplaying out the various interactions, and some fighting, and stuff. There was some ad-libbing, because the players always find some path I didn't think of (which means I don't usually prep in deep detail; the total is usually something like two to four notebook pages).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've skipped some posts, so I have to ask why any of that matters.  This thread is a discussion about which person/role in the *group* is most important or which role in the *group* is the most difficult.  The premise of this thread presumes the DM and players and their respective roles are already present and have been chosen.




The thread is actually about a few things. Going back to the OP, it seems to be more about "whose enjoyment or desires for play is paramount"....it points out how the GM typically is host and game runner, and so should that additional effort place more importance on his enjoyment. 

Then, the conversation turned more toward the importance of the role of GM to the game and/or to the group. The scarcity of GMs and how central to the game their function is, and the importance of that compared to the more plentiful players, and also the difficulty level compared between the two roles.

Then, the conversation also became about how difficult the role of GM actually is, and what can be done to make it easier, and also what players can do to help. A slight tangent on this was also which role is typically determined first for a new game....is it the GM who determines what's next, or some other method?

I think the word you've chosen to bold really addresses just about all of these things. The game is a group activity. Everyone's enjoyment is important. Everyone can contribute to the game. Everyone decides who will run what game next. Sure, there may be instances where this is not the case, but generally speaking, that's how it should be handled.

I don't think anyone really wants to deny that the function that the GM serves in a game is not central and vital. I think it's the act of placing it above the group that is provoking resistance.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

prabe said:


> I can't say exactly how @GameOgre spent their prep time, but I can tell what I do during mine. It's not usually four hours, but it's usually more than two. I've never broken down how long anything takes, but things include:
> 
> Working out the likely results of what the characters seem likely to do, given where they are in whatever story thread they're running down. If there are facts that need to emerge, now is when I like to figure out what htose facts are. If there are people they're likely to meet, now is when I like to figure those out, too. This is also when I figure out things that are likely to happen around the characters. In my every-other-Saturday campaign, this meant working out who the various members of the cabal of diabolists were in the city, and why they were working in the service of that archdevil; it meant working out what the characters were likely to find based on likely paths/choices; it meant working out what the cabal was likely to to do if they found out the party were looking for them (and if they didn't); it meant writing up index cards for the various devils they were likely to summon (since I'm not DMing at home, I prefer not to tote my Monster Manual around, to save at least a little weight). If there's going to be a treasure hoard, this is when I prefer to generate that (because I have extra homebrew and third-party stuff, I prefer to generate it at home).
> 
> ...




This sounds similar to my approach, overall, although it seems you go into more depth. I try to keep things short and bulleted so it's all on one page and easy to reference. I've found that printing up stat blocks from D&D Beyond can be a bit easier than handwriting out stats for monsters, or for having to flip through the Monster Manual over and over from one monster to the next. I generally cut and paste stat blocks and shrink them a bit so I can fit as many on one page as possible, and then I place these on a clipboard under my one page of notes. I use two clipboards in play, so one will have my notes and some monster stats, and the other will have additional monster stats and maybe a map on the rare occasion I need one before play. Two clipboards cuts down on the page flipping during play.

If a session is going to call for a lot of potential interaction, then I'll also make a list of names with maybe one or two details and space to write a bit more. So something like "Jarek, Aasimar, handsome and radiant-" and then decide who he may be as needed. Obviously, this is more for casual encounters such as innkeepers or guards or what have you, rather than NPCs who have a specific place in the fiction. 

Most of my prep is that germination period you reference.....where I'm just ruminating about the game and where it may go next. I don't really know how much time is spent on this in a given week. But it's not something I think of as work, or hard, it's part of my enjoyment of being a GM. I think this is my most productive prep, honestly, and the rest is just getting some of these ideas down on a page and organized a bit so I can reference them in play. 

Would you describe any of what you did as "hard"? It sounds a bit time consuming, perhaps, but not difficult in and of itself. And do you feel the need to make things easier?


----------



## macd21 (Feb 26, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> What did you spend your four hours doing? What kind of adventure did you craft? I don't think we can give specifics without understanding that.
> 
> More generally, I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly. I wouldn't ever expect there to be a 1:1 ratio for the amount of prep between GM: Player, but it can definitely ease the burden.
> 
> ...




All of that is interesting, but none of it actually helps make my job as a GM easier. Entirely the opposite, in fact, it complicates it. It might be fun (if the players come up with good material), but it would be additional material I would have to integrate into my campaign. That’s not lightening my burden, it’s increasing it.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Would you describe any of what you did as "hard"? It sounds a bit time consuming, perhaps, but not difficult in and of itself. And do you feel the need to make things easier?




I wouldn't call it "hard," really, no. I don't have a subscription to D&D Beyond, because ... well, because I don't need one. I don't mind putting a monster's stats onto a 5" x 8" index card (or, for something more complicated, a sheet of cardstock); at this point, I have something like a system for where things are, and I'd probably run less comfortably from a published stat block. What I have the most difficulty with, really, is motivating myself to write it, but I know I feel more comfortable (and as though I run better) with it written.

It doesn't feel from inside as though I go into all that much depth (though it might look like it from outside). The session with the cabal just had a lot of things I wanted to have written down. And I still ended up improvising a few characters (a bartender and a bouncer at a brothel, a cleric at a temple of [knowledge]), but those seemed less likely to matter to the story.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

macd21 said:


> All of that is interesting, but none of it actually helps make my job as a GM easier. Entirely the opposite, in fact, it complicates it. It might be fun (if the players come up with good material), but it would be additional material I would have to integrate into my campaign. That’s not lightening my burden, it’s increasing it.




Obviously, different things work for different people. I've found it to be quite the opposite, though.

For me, it helps give me focus points for play. The Cleric is looking for a lost relic of his faith, the fighter's brother is missing, etc. These give me hooks that I don't need to come up with on my own. If the players have also contributed in the world building, then I likely already have details about the cleric's church, and some villainous factions that may come into play. That's less that I have to craft myself. 

Perhaps it's a question of approach. I don't necessarily have things already decided that I have to incorporate these player ideas into, but rather what I try to do is add my ideas to theirs. Perhaps that's a meaningful distinction? Hard to say with minimal understanding of each other's actual game. 

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you're talking about a campaign that's already ongoing, is that right?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

prabe said:


> I wouldn't call it "hard," really, no. I don't have a subscription to D&D Beyond, because ... well, because I don't need one. I don't mind putting a monster's stats onto a 5" x 8" index card (or, for something more complicated, a sheet of cardstock); at this point, I have something like a system for where things are, and I'd probably run less comfortably from a published stat block. What I have the most difficulty with, really, is motivating myself to write it, but I know I feel more comfortable (and as though I run better) with it written.
> 
> It doesn't feel from inside as though I go into all that much depth (though it might look like it from outside). The session with the cabal just had a lot of things I wanted to have written down. And I still ended up improvising a few characters (a bartender and a bouncer at a brothel, a cleric at a temple of [knowledge]), but those seemed less likely to matter to the story.




When I said more in depth, I just meant that you had 4 pages of notes, and I try to keep it to 1 page. The level of detail sounds about the same, though....I think I just commit less to the page, maybe?

I think that my prep will certainly vary depending on what I expect will come up in play. If there's going to be a session that's more social interaction than combat, then my prep will be more lists of names and factions, and so on. We just resumed our 5E campaign after a long break where we played a few other games, so one of the earliest sessions was about reestablishing the city of Sigil as a home base. There was no combat, it was all about reminding the players of the relevant NPCs and organizations in Sigil, and having them interact with them with some skill challenges. 

I hold on to my prep very loosely though, because at any point in time, the PCs could veer off to pursue some seemingly minor goal, or they could decide screw this NPC and attack, or any number of other curveballs. I think somone just upthread posted a bit about how Dungeonworld suggests to "create maps, but leave blank areas" and I think that's great advice overall for GMing. A little trickier with D&D compared to the traditional way of running it, but still a good bit of advice to keep in mind.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> When I said more in depth, I just meant that you had 4 pages of notes, and I try to keep it to 1 page. The level of detail sounds about the same, though....I think I just commit less to the page, maybe?




I just checked, and it was more like three, including the cabal's treasure hoard. These are notebook pages, and there's plenty of white space so I can find stuff, so maybe it's not as much as you think? Agree that it's more than, say, one list of bullet points.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think that my prep will certainly vary depending on what I expect will come up in play. If there's going to be a session that's more social interaction than combat, then my prep will be more lists of names and factions, and so on. We just resumed our 5E campaign after a long break where we played a few other games, so one of the earliest sessions was about reestablishing the city of Sigil as a home base. There was no combat, it was all about reminding the players of the relevant NPCs and organizations in Sigil, and having them interact with them with some skill challenges.




Oh, I don't always prep this much. As I said, this had more in the way of names and motivations I wanted to have set (well, I wanted to have thought about them before the session, and I wrote them down so I'd remember them in the session). I've done prep where it wasn't clear where the party was going to go next (because they'd just finished a story thread, IIRC), so it was just a couple scanty paragraphs covering the most-likely threads for them to do next, and I improvised until I wasn't over my skis anymore then called an end to the session.



hawkeyefan said:


> I hold on to my prep very loosely though, because at any point in time, the PCs could veer off to pursue some seemingly minor goal, or they could decide screw this NPC and attack, or any number of other curveballs. I think somone just upthread posted a bit about how Dungeonworld suggests to "create maps, but leave blank areas" and I think that's great advice overall for GMing. A little trickier with D&D compared to the traditional way of running it, but still a good bit of advice to keep in mind.




Yeah. Blank areas are where the adventures (probably) are. I've had the party surprise me before in some kinda funny ways. It helps to be willing and able to write something off and/or improvise something.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

prabe said:


> I just checked, and it was more like three, including the cabal's treasure hoard. These are notebook pages, and there's plenty of white space so I can find stuff, so maybe it's not as much as you think? Agree that it's more than, say, one list of bullet points.




Ah, okay....probably not all that much more at all, then. I usually wind up with a few lists of bullet points. I just type it up in MS Word, and if needed, I'll add a second column to I can maximize space on the sheet. This is mostly because I realized a while back how much of our game time is spent with the players looking at me as I flip pages. So I've tried to limit that by reducing my need. I don't rely on the Monster Manual itself for stats, and I try to keep everything on two clipboards so that I can easily track it all, and minimize the page flipping. 

Other people probably don't struggle with that at all, but I think it was one of my weak points so I've tried to improve that.



prabe said:


> Oh, I don't always prep this much. As I said, this had more in the way of names and motivations I wanted to have set (well, I wanted to have thought about them before the session, and I wrote them down so I'd remember them in the session). I've done prep where it wasn't clear where the party was going to go next (because they'd just finished a story thread, IIRC), so it was just a couple scanty paragraphs covering the most-likely threads for them to do next, and I improvised until I wasn't over my skis anymore then called an end to the session.




Yeah, after my session last night (I referenced it earlier in the thread; the PCs went into an asylum to find someone interred there who had information they need, there was a weird situation going on there with some of the other inmates and they had to deal with that), I'm not quite sure what they'll do next. We left off with them coming face to face with the person they had come for, so we'll start off with her sharing the information they were looking for.....and then I'm not quite sure what they'll decide to do with that. 

What I'll likely do is prep a few short lists of possible routes forward and potential obstacles or encounters for each route.



prabe said:


> Yeah. Blank areas are where the adventures (probably) are. I've had the party surprise me before in some kinda funny ways. It helps to be willing and able to write something off and/or improvise something.




I think that the ability to let go of prepped material when it makes sense to do so is a big part of successful GMing. It's also one that many people will push against. I have a friend who GMs regularly at a game store. Hes GMed for far, far more people than I ever have. Yet all he runs are published modules and adventure paths, and as soon as anyone starts to deviate from the available options presented in the book, he shoves them right back onto the expected path. 

And honestly, for the most part, that's fine....adventure paths can be perfectly valid fun, and often they're dismissed as railroading and so on, and that's not the point I'm trying to make. Even in the most direct and straightforward adventure ever, the GM should allow for a little wandering from the path. Not abandoning the path, but just little detours or sidetreks here and there.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 26, 2020)

macd21 said:


> See, as a DM I would hate that. And as a player, I wouldn’t find it fun.




Most everyone would. There is a huge reason games like D&D are king and games like Dungeon World"a game I do like,just not as much as D&D" struggle to lift off.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> If this occurs, often the notes _the players_ took will be adequate, won't they? I mean, they're not going to try and leverage stuff they didn't know about or have forgotten about.



Sure they are - harking back to some half-remembered detail that for whatever reason has suddenly gained greater (potential) sgnificance is commonplace. And it's not at all unreasonable for them to expect that if they go back to it the information will be consistent with what they got the first time because the GM actually has something to reference beyond just her own memory.



> If everyone's memory is a bit hazy (that happens sometimes at my table) then a collective conversation can hash out the details.



These play reports from your games that you post now and then - if you do those in that kind of detail for every session and post 'em where you and your players can read 'em, you're already in much better shape than most.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 26, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> What did you spend your four hours doing? What kind of adventure did you craft? I don't think we can give specifics without understanding that.
> 
> More generally, I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly. I wouldn't ever expect there to be a 1:1 ratio for the amount of prep between GM: Player, but it can definitely ease the burden.
> 
> ...




I spent some time drawing locations. My group plays online so even when I use theater of the mind, I like to give the players at least a floorplan to look at. 5E tends to have more enemies on the board so for most battles I build a encounter map. Since I do not rail road players in general, I normally need to make multiple avenues fro them to pursue as well so some of that doesn't get used until later"I try and keep everything and sooner or later do end up happy that I did".

I also created nine npc's. Some of those will not see use but some will,no way to really know till the players do their thing.

Then I had to write a lose chart on what npc went where and did what. To help keep it all strait some game time and even long after to help with remembering it all even months later.

Then I created the actual encounters. Some took longer than others and will not get used now, but eventually they will. Then I made up two players maps to hand out to the players in game and out. I also made three handouts and loaded a ton of pictures to roll20 to use with npc's I really don't expect the party to fight.

Then I took out some paper and sketched some ideas out for if the party doesn't do anything I want/expect. If instead of working for the accused guardsman they just don't bite that idea and instead go to the docks and see if anyone is hiring. I made a at sea short adventure and reused npc's from another adventure like six months ago to fill out the crew. I didn't so much make all the encounters but got a general idea of how it might all work out. Since I don't expect the party to do this im not putting a lot of time into it but....better to have something to work with if I need it.

oh...then I went and reread the party backstories again and altered the game to reflect a couple of things in those backstories, one is likely to happen and one not. For kicks I changed the Captain npc for the what if adventure to one in a pc's backstory and had to make that npc.

After thinking about some of my treasure ideas a second time"i tend to either give too much treasure or not enough......I added to it a little and wrote down a couple of magic things I can throw in if the party doesn't do a great job at winning or discovering some of the other rewards.

I was tempted to take a second look at the encounters after I realized the main adventure total was so high but then figured why mess with it. The pc's are not likely to do it all but if they do hunt down every last bit of it ,,,why should I stand in there way. Will just lease it as is.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> I spent some time drawing locations. My group plays online so even when I use theater of the mind, I like to give the players at least a floorplan to look at. 5E tends to have more enemies on the board so for most battles I build a encounter map. Since I do not rail road players in general, I normally need to make multiple avenues fro them to pursue as well so some of that doesn't get used until later"I try and keep everything and sooner or later do end up happy that I did".
> 
> I also created nine npc's. Some of those will not see use but some will,no way to really know till the players do their thing.
> 
> ...




I'm curious: How much difference to you think it made to your prep time, that you were preparing for Roll20 (if I'm reading right)? It's a more detailed sort of prep than I do, but my feeling is that GMs do the amount of prep they're comfortable with, so that's not a value judgment.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> If you don't want to contribute to the game, why are you here?



My being here IS contributing to the game...  oh, shut up, ego!

The difference between a DM and the players is this: player contributions to the game happen mostly during play and not often at any other time; DM contributions happen both during play and between sessions (e.g. prep).



> If all you want to do is passively lap up whatever the DM is serving, passively sitting there, why are you playing an RPG?  You can get a FAR better experience in a video game.  It's objectively bad because as we see in this thread, passive players dominate the hobby and the notion of actually having to contribute more than being a warm blooded dice bot is horrific.   I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who think that my function, as DM, is to provide for their entertainment.



As a player I see my function at the table is to provide entertainment for the DM and the other players present.



> Take notes.  Keep a wiki.  Track what's going on session to session.



Recordkeeping and game logs are quite intentionally left to the DM, in order that they be neutral.  Any player doing such things would inevitably let bias creep in no matter how hard they tried otherwise.


> Provide material for the DM.  Step up with goals, family, ties, enemies, and whatever else for the DM.



And then hope the DM uses any of it.



> Yup, and that's the problem right there.  The notion that there is a "most accurate account".



"_In case of disagreement between this log and the DM's, the DM's is to be taken as correct._"

There HAS to be a final point of arbitration.



> The expectation that the DM is the one to do all the work introducing stuff.  Why aren't you introducing things?  Why aren't you triggering actions?  Why aren't you the one driving the action in the game?



And now you're on solid ground, as all these are valid questions.  But they've nothing to do with record-keeping, which is how you led into them.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 26, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'm curious: How much difference to you think it made to your prep time, that you were preparing for Roll20 (if I'm reading right)? It's a more detailed sort of prep than I do, but my feeling is that GMs do the amount of prep they're comfortable with, so that's not a value judgment.




Double is my guess. It really does add a extra layer of work to running a game,you can't just show players anything unless you have scanned it,uploaded it,made it into a useable form for roll20 and then make sure its in a good spot to use it in game.

Heck there are times I can't even alter the encounter. If lag is a issue for you or your players or just roll20 in general is being laggy adding one kobold to a encounter can take like 5 min for it to get added to everyone's screen. So on roll20 it's ALWAYS better to over prepare than underprepared. 

Also it makes running pure theater of the mind games so much more tempting.


----------



## prabe (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> Double is my guess. It really does add a extra layer of work to running a game,you can't just show players anything unless you have scanned it,uploaded it,made it into a useable form for roll20 and then make sure its in a good spot to use it in game.




So if it took you four hours for roll20, that's more like two hours for in-person, which isn't that far off what I spend. I blow some time hand-writing monsters onto index cards, of course, but we all work at least a little differently.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Exploratory play is hardly the only style of gaming in the world.



Last I checked, exploration is in theory still one of the three pillars of play.



> Why on earth would you need to schedule time for prep?  Good grief, you've never heard of email?  A wiki?  I'm not quite sure what you're envisioning, so, follow the link below and you'll see it better.  As far as what they set up, of course they set up everything in their section.  Why wouldn't they?



Because it spoils the mystery.

If I-as-player have designed a section of the dungeon the absolute last thing I'd want to do would be play through it.  I already know what's coming, I already know the secrets, the monsters, and the traps, I already know what (and where!) the treasure is and the properties of the magic items - so what's the point of playing?

"Yeah, guys, you've just hit my section of the dungeon, so I'll tune out for the next few hours while you explore it.  Have fun! >_evil cackle_<"



> It's not like the game doesn't have guidelines for treasure placement.  You'd almost think that we're performing magic.  Making a dungeon crawl isn't exactly rocket science.  Yes, they decide what monsters are there, what treasure is there, where and what traps are there.  Of course.
> 
> But, yeah, I can see how some folks might see this as far too threatening to their authority.



It's nothing to do with threatening authority from the DM side, it's to do with ruining the game from the player side.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

The idea of a 'dungeon' is a real stumbling block when it comes to talking about D&D and other prep styles and play styles. Dungeons are traditionally the very model of prep-heavy it's-all-on-the-DM style prep work. The DM has to draw the map, populate the dungeon, balance encounters, and so on and so forth. I agree with @Lanefan that cooperative dungeon design would suck. My example from earlier was about cities or provinces where the players would be expected to have some significant prior knowledge. Dungeons though, they are the unknown, and they're fun because you never know what's coming. 

The other thing dungeons don't have is any kind of support structure. No familiar locations or NPCs in between encounters with the unknown. No character area knowledge or other information, unless directly provided by the DM as a clue. The players don't know _anything_ about the dungeon. This makes it hard to see how players could 'help' drive the narrative and the party relies on the DM for pretty much everything. The players can help, and there are people that run stuff like dungeons off the cuff, but it's hard compared to other adventuring environments, or at least it takes getting used to. 

If you picture an urban environment like a dungeon, the idea of support starts to makes sense. The party still moves from encounter to encounter, each an new unknown. But the 'hallways' in between are all the familiar city where the players know people, locations, lore, politics, factions, secrets, and whatever. That gives the players a whole lot of handles to help drive the narrative in interesting ways and indeed add to it with character driven play.

The more plot arcs, up to a point, in play also adds to the ability of PCs to drive the narrative. If you have some sort of major crisis narrative, as is common for D&D, plus some character driven shorter arcs, and some goal oriented decision making, the players have a lot of decisions they can make about exactly what to next. In most cases it will be to follow one of the arcs in play, either the major crisis arc, or something else they have a personal stake in. Players investment takes a lot of the sting out of sandbox-y play because the players _want_ to do X and Y.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> I spent some time drawing locations. My group plays online so even when I use theater of the mind, I like to give the players at least a floorplan to look at. 5E tends to have more enemies on the board so for most battles I build a encounter map. Since I do not rail road players in general, I normally need to make multiple avenues fro them to pursue as well so some of that doesn't get used until later"I try and keep everything and sooner or later do end up happy that I did".




Okay, the online element is definitely a piece that I have minimal experience with. I do play in an online game through Roll20, but I have not yet GMed D&D online. The game I play in uses the published material from WotC, which includes the maps and handouts and the like. 

I am planning on running an online game soon, but it's not going to be D&D, and will be theater of the mind. 

Do you enjoy drawing all the maps? Honestly, for me, that would be something I'd eliminate. I mean, an encounter map if you're playing with minis, or with tokens online, is a bit of a necessary evil. But are these other maps you're providing necessary? 

Would using published material be an option? repurposing images and maps from a published adventure?




GameOgre said:


> I also created nine npc's. Some of those will not see use but some will,no way to really know till the players do their thing.




When you say you created nine NPCs, what do you mean? What level of detail? Are they each unique, or can some of them use the same or similar stat blocks? 

I tend to bank NPCs and stat blocks for future use as needed. So if my PCs are facing an evil wizard, I already have a stat block ready to go, with maybe a couple of tweaks in order based on level.



GameOgre said:


> Then I had to write a lose chart on what npc went where and did what. To help keep it all strait some game time and even long after to help with remembering it all even months later.




Why do you need this level of detail months later? Please don't take that as a challenge, I'm curious. 

I generally don't take notes during play, nor post play until I do my prep for the next session. Then I kind of take the previous session as a starting point.



GameOgre said:


> Then I created the actual encounters. Some took longer than others and will not get used now, but eventually they will. Then I made up two players maps to hand out to the players in game and out. I also made three handouts and loaded a ton of pictures to roll20 to use with npc's I really don't expect the party to fight.
> 
> Then I took out some paper and sketched some ideas out for if the party doesn't do anything I want/expect. If instead of working for the accused guardsman they just don't bite that idea and instead go to the docks and see if anyone is hiring. I made a at sea short adventure and reused npc's from another adventure like six months ago to fill out the crew. I didn't so much make all the encounters but got a general idea of how it might all work out. Since I don't expect the party to do this im not putting a lot of time into it but....better to have something to work with if I need it.




Here's where my inexperience with DMing online limits me.....what goes into designing an encounter for play in Roll20?



GameOgre said:


> oh...then I went and reread the party backstories again and altered the game to reflect a couple of things in those backstories, one is likely to happen and one not. For kicks I changed the Captain npc for the what if adventure to one in a pc's backstory and had to make that npc.




That's cool. I don't have PC backstories at hand like that, but they're generally well known, and my players are all personal friends who I can reach out to if I need a detail like that. Generally speaking, their histories are all relevant enough to play that I have a good sense of them. But I definitely tailor things for these specific characters.



GameOgre said:


> After thinking about some of my treasure ideas a second time"i tend to either give too much treasure or not enough......I added to it a little and wrote down a couple of magic things I can throw in if the party doesn't do a great job at winning or discovering some of the other rewards.
> 
> I was tempted to take a second look at the encounters after I realized the main adventure total was so high but then figured why mess with it. The pc's are not likely to do it all but if they do hunt down every last bit of it ,,,why should I stand in there way. Will just lease it as is.




Treasure is a very minimal concern for me. I tend to give my bad guys some gear, especially consumables and other small scale items, and then kind of determine additional stuff on the fly. I find that observing play gives me ideas of what may be in order for the PCs. Again, I do kind of tailor things to the specific PCs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The idea of a 'dungeon' is a real stumbling block when it comes to talking about D&D and other prep styles and play styles. Dungeons are traditionally the very model of prep-heavy it's-all-on-the-DM style prep work. The DM has to draw the map, populate the dungeon, balance encounters, and so on and so forth. I agree with @Lanefan that cooperative dungeon design would suck. My example from earlier was about cities or provinces where the players would be expected to have some significant prior knowledge. Dungeons though, they are the unknown, and they're fun because you never know what's coming.
> 
> The other thing dungeons don't have is any kind of support structure. No familiar locations or NPCs in between encounters with the unknown. No character area knowledge or other information, unless directly provided by the DM as a clue. The players don't know _anything_ about the dungeon. This makes it hard to see how players could 'help' drive the narrative and the party relies on the DM for pretty much everything. The players can help, and there are people that run stuff like dungeons off the cuff, but it's hard compared to other adventuring environments, or at least it takes getting used to.
> 
> ...




Yeah, the Dungeon as adventure is definitely a big part of it. The amount of dungeons that I run is minimal, and I tend not to play in a traditional "keyed location" kind of environment. The more a game leans toward that direction, then the more specific prep is required.....maps, NPCs and monsters in specific locations, treasure in each area, traps and other obstacles. 

So some of that is going to be a necessity if you are going to run a dungeon delve. Or at least, it's going to be more likely that you'll need it. It certainly is possible to design the location in a location based adventure on the fly, but that takes some getting used to. The method is the question....do you rely on random tables to create rooms/encounters? Or do you improvise on the fly? Or do you have some blend of methods?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The idea of a 'dungeon' is a real stumbling block when it comes to talking about D&D and other prep styles and play styles. Dungeons are traditionally the very model of prep-heavy it's-all-on-the-DM style prep work. The DM has to draw the map, populate the dungeon, balance encounters, and so on and so forth. I agree with @Lanefan that cooperative dungeon design would suck. My example from earlier was about cities or provinces where the players would be expected to have some significant prior knowledge. Dungeons though, they are the unknown, and they're fun because you never know what's coming.
> 
> The other thing dungeons don't have is any kind of support structure. No familiar locations or NPCs in between encounters with the unknown. No character area knowledge or other information, unless directly provided by the DM as a clue. The players don't know _anything_ about the dungeon. This makes it hard to see how players could 'help' drive the narrative and the party relies on the DM for pretty much everything. The players can help, and there are people that run stuff like dungeons off the cuff, but it's hard compared to other adventuring environments, or at least it takes getting used to.
> 
> ...




It's not just dungeons: it any form of heavy player exploration.  For example, a hex crawl suffers a similar problem.  Should the party push through the swamp or trust skirting the edge is enough?  Heck, I've run exploration-heavy soap-opera superhero games where the primary exploration was relationships and personal secrets.

Another example is my current campaign.  Exploration isn't one of the three main pillars.  It is THE pillar holding up the tent.  It is a modern X-Files - style game with very strong and identifiable factions that the PCs started off knowing absolutely nothing about.  Now, 7ish years later, the  players can start to figure out the opposition within minutes of starting a new mission.  They still struggle with how a couple of the factions relate to others, but they have a strong sense of their place in the world.  

Exploration-heavy games restrict players' ability to add to the world because to collaborate requires information sharing that'd undercut the campaign premise.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Running an unknown faction game is very cool. You could still do coop work on a city if you had a home base location, but barring that the coop planning is tough. However, I think I'd run a lot of that kind of game as very very character driven, so there's always options (that's just me of course, I'm not trying to dictate anything).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Running an unknown faction game is very cool. You could still do coop work on a city if you had a home base location, but barring that the coop planning is tough. However, I think I'd run a lot of that kind of game as very very character driven, so there's always options (that's just me of course, I'm not trying to dictate anything).




Sure!  you can collaboratively design available and known locations.  Modern games generally don't need much design work spent there though.  I use google maps  and run the "normal world" as the normal world.  Exploration-heavy campaigns generally don't spend too much time in known territories unless the exploration is in a different "space" like relationships so much of the time design of know territory isn't that important.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

So, just so's I'm clear.

People are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to expect the DM to spend 2-4 hours of time away from the table preparing the adventure, but, adding advice and concepts to the game so that players would spend 1 hour away from the table and reduce DM prep time to 1 hour is completely unacceptable?

Is that correct?

Note, my Dirty Dungeon example above is only one example.  It's not meant as the be all and end all solution.  There are other things that could be done.

Also note, again, with a collaborative adventure, you STILL have exploration, even in the sections that the player generated, because the point of the DM's end of the preparation is to change elements of each section.  So, even though you designed this 1/4 (or whatever the divide comes down to) of the adventure, you can't actually be sure of what's in that quarter.  So, we still preserve exploration.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> I spent some time drawing locations. My group plays online so even when I use theater of the mind, I like to give the players at least a floorplan to look at. 5E tends to have more enemies on the board so for most battles I build a encounter map. Since I do not rail road players in general, I normally need to make multiple avenues fro them to pursue as well so some of that doesn't get used until later"I try and keep everything and sooner or later do end up happy that I did".
> 
> I also created nine npc's. Some of those will not see use but some will,no way to really know till the players do their thing.




So, right here.  Would it have been impossible for the players to create those nine NPC's?  Could you not have assigned 2 or 3 NPC's per player, even if it's only the scut work of generating a stat block for each?  



> Then I had to write a lose chart on what npc went where and did what. To help keep it all strait some game time and even long after to help with remembering it all even months later.




Again, could we not apply the Dirty Dungeon approach here?  Each player generates three NPC's, some of which will likely not see use, and also give a loose outline of where they went and what they did?  And, again, the DM injects changes after the fact?



> Then I created the actual encounters. Some took longer than others and will not get used now, but eventually they will. Then I made up two players maps to hand out to the players in game and out. I also made three handouts and loaded a ton of pictures to roll20 to use with npc's I really don't expect the party to fight.




As someone who also does a ton of play online, I get the issue.  I've certainly dived down the rabbit hole of trying to find and then crop and edit just the right image.  It can be very time consuming.  But, since we're dumping all this off on the players, it's no longer our time being consumed.



> Then I took out some paper and sketched some ideas out for if the party doesn't do anything I want/expect. If instead of working for the accused guardsman they just don't bite that idea and instead go to the docks and see if anyone is hiring. I made a at sea short adventure and reused npc's from another adventure like six months ago to fill out the crew. I didn't so much make all the encounters but got a general idea of how it might all work out. Since I don't expect the party to do this im not putting a lot of time into it but....better to have something to work with if I need it.




No reason that this can't be done no matter who is doing the prep.



> oh...then I went and reread the party backstories again and altered the game to reflect a couple of things in those backstories, one is likely to happen and one not. For kicks I changed the Captain npc for the what if adventure to one in a pc's backstory and had to make that npc.




But, since we're getting the players to do this, they can generate NPC's that apply to the PC's.  With the advice that they should create NPC's for other players and not just their own.



> After thinking about some of my treasure ideas a second time"i tend to either give too much treasure or not enough......I added to it a little and wrote down a couple of magic things I can throw in if the party doesn't do a great job at winning or discovering some of the other rewards.
> 
> I was tempted to take a second look at the encounters after I realized the main adventure total was so high but then figured why mess with it. The pc's are not likely to do it all but if they do hunt down every last bit of it ,,,why should I stand in there way. Will just lease it as is.




Again, this sort of thing can be done by anyone including the DM.  There's no particular reason it shouldn't be done by the DM.

There, I just cut your prep time down to about 1 hour, maybe 2.  Players have to submit their elements, say, three days before the session and you're good to go.  Exploration elements are kept because only 1 player knows what's going on in each scenario and there is no reason for any particular scenario to be used over another.  So, even if we use Bob's scenario this week, there's a very good chance that we won't use one of Bob's scenes next week.  Plus, you now have a lot more material than you would have had, meaning that you can take unused material and put it into your "use later" binder.  

Every player is engaged.  Every player is exploring.  And, now, the DM has a fraction of the workload.

--------

Now, the bigger question is, do you find the DM workload difficult?  Is it too much or not?  If it's not too much and it's stuff you enjoy doing, then fair enough, why change?  Why would you change if it's something you like?  

My point is that the advice in RPG's should provide OPTIONS.  A choice between the DM prepping 100% or splitting it between the DM and players in whatever ratio that group feels comfortable with.  As it stands right now, there is no choice being presented.  The DM must prep 100% and this is why everyone talks about DMing being hard.  Well, if people feel that DMing is hard, then wouldn't the solution be to make it less hard?  How can we make it less hard?  Well, one solution is to offload some of the DM's workload onto the rest of the group.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, just so's I'm clear.
> 
> People are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to expect the DM to spend 2-4 hours of time away from the table preparing the adventure, but, adding advice and concepts to the game so that players would spend 1 hour away from the table and reduce DM prep time to 1 hour is completely unacceptable?
> 
> ...




No.  No one has argued that.  The primary argument has been nothing has been presented that in fact would reduce DM time for the specific request (a currently running 5e game).  A secondary argument has been there is no indication players are willing to adopt consistent prep time of any duration.  After examining the Dirty Dungeon, it is extremely gameable by rational players and would need substantial alteration -- basically a complete revision to make it into any game I'd run.  Even in its current form, it strongly cuts into table time probably by an hour or more per use.

Whether or not collaborative exploration makes sense depends mostly on the type of exploration in the campaign.  It there is something for the players to actually discover, as opposed to reveal at the table, collaborative construction won't work.  For example, I couldn't tell my players enough to let them intelligibly offer exploration elements with respect to  the Conspiracy-X campaign.  All the factions act within very specific guidelines and the point of much of the exploration is to unravel what those are.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, right here.  Would it have been impossible for the players to create those nine NPC's?  Could you not have assigned 2 or 3 NPC's per player, even if it's only the scut work of generating a stat block for each?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Generally, it would be impossible, yes.  The players creating NPCs unless the NPCs are fluff to begin with, grants too much insight and ability to build in their own entry paths.  Reviewing and editing other people's work is time consuming.  Reviewing and then applying changes that I'd need to dream up is probably no shorter than building 9 personalities and stat blocks.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> Most everyone would. There is a huge reason games like D&D are king and games like Dungeon World"a game I do like,just not as much as D&D" struggle to lift off.





I mean, seriously, game elitism in the service of supporting your preferred style of play?  Don't forget that TSR ran into trouble and sold to WotC because they lost market share against White Wolf, which didn't feature a game like D&D.  5e is a very good game -- bland enough to not rankle and just spicy enough to be enjoyable.  It's an absolute marketing success, although a good bit of that is serendipity rather than a comment of the quality of 5e.  5e is, undoubtedly, the current king of the market for RPGs, no close competitor.  I don't think saying that a very popular indie game without all of the benefits the current edition of 5e has is somehow lesser because it doesn't have as large a market share.  And I don't think that you, as someone who likes 5e, inherits any legitimacy from this.  Nor does 5e inherit any more legitimacy because people like it.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are. The point isn't just to have the players do this btw, it's to sit around a table and build setting together, expanding on each other's ideas, connecting things, playing yes and... - there's more in play there than just transferring paperwork from the DMs pile to the player's. Something like this:

_*Krom Stonehand* - leader of the local Bashers - big, bald, and unsavory, a reputation for savagery and strangely cute tattoos (just don't mention them), likes knives

trusted lieutenant in the thieves guild, runs a tight crew thru fear not smarts, gets along well with NPC A, hated by NPC B.

Crew based out of a warehouse in the docks, sign out front says "Trishorn Imports", hangs out at the Crown and Anchor on most nights._

Speaking as a DM, that's a lot of useful information. I can build that NPC stat block in a heartbeat. Plus, now that player already knows the above info, so when Krom comes up in play I won't have to spoon feed information about him.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are. The point isn't just to have the players do this btw, it's to sit around a table and build setting together, expanding on each other's ideas, connecting things, playing yes and... - there's more in play there than just transferring paperwork from the DMs pile to the player's. Something like this:
> 
> _*Krom Stonehand* - leader of the local Bashers - big, bald, and unsavory, a reputation for savagery and strangely cute tattoos (just don't mention them), likes knives
> 
> ...




Sure, I suppose.  Per NPC that wouldn't cut much time off the construction and would potentially introduce anachronisms you'd have to be watchful for.  If the campaign uses a few hundred NPCs the player sketch out, the savings might add up.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> No.  No one has argued that.  The primary argument has been nothing has been presented that in fact would reduce DM time for the specific request (a currently running 5e game).  A secondary argument has been there is no indication players are willing to adopt consistent prep time of any duration.  After examining the Dirty Dungeon, it is extremely gameable by rational players and would need substantial alteration -- basically a complete revision to make it into any game I'd run.  Even in its current form, it strongly cuts into table time probably by an hour or more per use.
> 
> Whether or not collaborative exploration makes sense depends mostly on the type of exploration in the campaign.  It there is something for the players to actually discover, as opposed to reveal at the table, collaborative construction won't work.  For example, I couldn't tell my players enough to let them intelligibly offer exploration elements with respect to  the Conspiracy-X campaign.  All the factions act within very specific guidelines and the point of much of the exploration is to unravel what those are.



This is.. well, I don't know what Hussar said so I can only say that this is a pretty strong distortion of what other people have said.  Firstly, if you state a challenge in terms of the baked in assumptions that cannot be changed and then challenge people to show how not changing those baked in assumptions can lead to less work in following those baked in assumptions... yeah, that's going to be hard to do.  I mean, really, you're asking that people show you techniques for lowering your prep while meeting the requirement that your prep not lower because that would distort all of the prep you've already done.  Impossible.  What people are suggesting is that changing those assumptions can lead to lower prep, so if you're ruling out the argument to start, it's not victory to show no one can prove differently.

Secondly, a lot of the suggestions here are on how to share prep in play, not expect players to prep the game outside of play and show up to share notes beforehand.  If you make what's usually done in prep part of play, it's 1) not prep anymore, and 2) can be much more collaborative and load sharing.  Again, you're defining the required proof in terms that exclude the arguments made and claiming victory.  Seems pretty empty -- you refuse to countenance the actual argument made and then declare it bunk because you've refused to countenance it.  Okay, you win?

And, yes, if you have a constructed campaign with secrets hidden from the player but still unalterable aspects of the fictional world, then it is impossible to expect players to collaborate effectively, since you cannot allow any creation that violates the hidden secrets or your prepared, but unplayed, plot points and the players cannot know enough about things they don't know to be useful in providing information.  Again, you've defined success so that it only favors your beliefs.  The counter argument is_ don't start with Conspiracy-X if you're going to build a collaborative game.  _Ruling that out to start seems more like sitting on the scale than placing a thumb on it.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I mean, seriously, game elitism in the service of supporting your preferred style of play?  Don't forget that TSR ran into trouble and sold to WotC because *they lost market share against White Wolf, which didn't feature a game like D&D*.  5e is a very good game -- bland enough to not rankle and just spicy enough to be enjoyable.  It's an absolute marketing success, although a good bit of that is serendipity rather than a comment of the quality of 5e.  5e is, undoubtedly, the current king of the market for RPGs, no close competitor.  I don't think saying that a very popular indie game without all of the benefits the current edition of 5e has is somehow lesser because it doesn't have as large a market share.  And I don't think that you, as someone who likes 5e, inherits any legitimacy from this.  Nor does 5e inherit any more legitimacy because people like it.




Wait what??  I always considered the White Wolf games of the 90's to be very traditional, especially in their GM/Player duties... Or are you saying because it wasn't euro-medieval fantasy?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is.. well, I don't know what Hussar said so I can only say that this is a pretty strong distortion of what other people have said.  Firstly, if you state a challenge in terms of the baked in assumptions that cannot be changed and then challenge people to show how not changing those baked in assumptions can lead to less work in following those baked in assumptions... yeah, that's going to be hard to do.  I mean, really, you're asking that people show you techniques for lowering your prep while meeting the requirement that your prep not lower because that would distort all of the prep you've already done.  Impossible.  What people are suggesting is that changing those assumptions can lead to lower prep, so if you're ruling out the argument to start, it's not victory to show no one can prove differently.
> 
> Secondly, a lot of the suggestions here are on how to share prep in play, not expect players to prep the game outside of play and show up to share notes beforehand.  If you make what's usually done in prep part of play, it's 1) not prep anymore, and 2) can be much more collaborative and load sharing.  Again, you're defining the required proof in terms that exclude the arguments made and claiming victory.  Seems pretty empty -- you refuse to countenance the actual argument made and then declare it bunk because you've refused to countenance it.  Okay, you win?
> 
> And, yes, if you have a constructed campaign with secrets hidden from the player but still unalterable aspects of the fictional world, then it is impossible to expect players to collaborate effectively, since you cannot allow any creation that violates the hidden secrets or your prepared, but unplayed, plot points and the players cannot know enough about things they don't know to be useful in providing information.  Again, you've defined success so that it only favors your beliefs.  The counter argument is_ don't start with Conspiracy-X if you're going to build a collaborative game.  _Ruling that out to start seems more like sitting on the scale than placing a thumb on it.




I didn't ask anything @GameOgre did.

The initial techniques offered would reduce prep in a FATE game (or similar play style game) during worldbuilding.  It's not a stretch to point out that doesn't solve anything for GameOgre already running a 5e game.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

The issue isn't that we're using techniques that are different... it's that the techniques are fundamentally changing the gameplay and playstyle of D&D.  In other words why at this point don't I just got play BitD or FATE since that's the experience I'm trying to force D&D into.  Well the answer is probably because I want to have the D&D play experience/playtyle thus why i'm not playing BitD or FATE at the moment.  Which brings me back to something I commented on earlier... the answer seems to be play a different game, which really isn't an answer.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, the online element is definitely a piece that I have minimal experience with. I do play in an online game through Roll20, but I have not yet GMed D&D online. The game I play in uses the published material from WotC, which includes the maps and handouts and the like.
> 
> I am planning on running an online game soon, but it's not going to be D&D, and will be theater of the mind.
> 
> ...



I play on roll20, I love maps, and I spend most of my prep building multiple interesting maps for my games (I like dynamic spaces).  That said, I spend far less time on prep than @GameOgre does per session and seem to have a much better time of it as, even to start, I could pretty quickly build maps in roll20.  I think, though, that may be because I tend to build map assets from the roll20 marketplace so sizing is done already?  Sizing can be a pain if you're grabbing map images from other places, that's true.  I've also had only a handful of issues with lag causing problems in about three years of roll20 play.  Certainly less than 10.  I dunno what the delta there is.

I also run BitD on roll20.  I do almost nothing at all for that.  Maybe look for neat handout images, if I'm inclined to, but that's limited to general ambiance pics because, as you know, it's hard to guess what's happening next in a Blades game.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I didn't ask anything @GameOgre did.



Ah, sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes if a complaint is from the complainant or just a white knight who then casually discards the argument when challenged.  My apologies.


> The initial techniques offered would reduce prep in a FATE game (or similar play style game) during worldbuilding.  It's not a stretch to point out that doesn't solve anything for GameOgre already running a 5e game.



Sorry, is this your opinion, or are you guessing what someone else's opinion is?  It would be good to know if you're putting forth the exact argument I just addressed or if this is just you putting forth someone else's argument again after saying it wasn't yours and you don't have any interest in discussing it.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Wait what??  I always considered the White Wolf games of the 90's to be very traditional, especially in their GM/Player duties... Or are you saying because it wasn't euro-medieval fantasy?




WoD was an early attempt at a "Nar" game as opposed to D&D's "trad" game play.  Ultimately, the GM / players roles ended up similar with the GM being expected to simply use enough force to force play into a strong narrative.  The tools to provide a stronger natural 'Nar' experience hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes if a complaint is from the complainant or just a white knight who then casually discards the argument when challenged.  My apologies.
> 
> Sorry, is this your opinion, or are you guessing what someone else's opinion is?  It would be good to know if you're putting forth the exact argument I just addressed or if this is just you putting forth someone else's argument again after saying it wasn't yours and you don't have any interest in discussing it.




@GameOrgre came out and stated where he spent his time.  Dresden Files style shared worldbuilding isn't a fit.  Feel free to read the thread and catch up so I don't need to summarize.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> WoD was an early attempt at a "Nar" game as opposed to D&D's "trad" game play.  Ultimately, the GM / players roles ended up similar with the GM being expected to simply use enough force to force play into a strong narrative.  The tools to provide a stronger natural 'Nar' experience hadn't been invented yet.




Yeah that was my point it actually played very similar to D&D... irregardless of what the hype at the time claimed.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> WoD was an early attempt at a "Nar" game as opposed to D&D's "trad" game play.  Ultimately, the GM / players roles ended up similar with the GM being expected to simply use enough force to force play into a strong narrative.  The tools to provide a stronger natural 'Nar' experience hadn't been invented yet.



I disagree with about half of this.  WoD was an attempt to feature character focused play.  It didn't provide a robust toolkit to do so, so people familiar with GM directed play just kept playing it that way, because you could.  And, there are absolutely better toolkits for the goal of WoD out there.  Burning Wheel gets pretty darned close to the character-focused promise of WoD.  As does Dogs in the Vineyard.  The Powered by the Apocalypse games also do a much better job of it.

Now, if you prefer scripted play, then sure, then GM Force is a requirement and there's no better toolbox than Force to achieve GM scripted play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> @GameOrgre came out and stated where he spent his time.  Dresden Files style shared worldbuilding isn't a fit.  Feel free to read the thread and catch up so I don't need to summarize.



Oh, I'm caught up.   I addressed your statement about DF shared worldbuilding above -- perhaps you missed it and would like to review?  Or, is this another case where you're going to use GameOgre as a rhetorical shield?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Yeah that was my point it actually played very similar to D&D... irregardless of what the hype at the time claimed.



It's... not.  Prep for WoD isn't nearly at the level of prep for D&D because it's focus isn't the combat minigame but instead character interactions.  That it's as vulnerable to GM Force as D&D, and often played as the GM directing the players in the GM's play isn't really germane to the context of this thread, which is about GM importance (only germane in the sense that such importance is based entirely on assumptions, not requirements) and difficulty of being a GM.  I saw enough bad WoD games to know that being a WoD GM certainly wasn't hard, so long as you'd properly cowed your players into following your story.  Also required zero prep to do so.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, I'm caught up.   I addressed your statement about DF shared worldbuilding above -- perhaps you missed it and would like to review?  Or, is this another case where you're going to use GameOgre as a rhetorical shield?




Nah, I'll just ignore you arguments, thanks.
You should have ignored the impulse to post this.  EVERYONE: disagreeing without being disagreeable is the better path.  Ignoring someone is fine; announcing you’re doing so just adds fuel to the fire.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> It's... not.  Prep for WoD isn't nearly at the level of prep for D&D because it's focus isn't the combat minigame but instead character interactions.  That it's as vulnerable to GM Force as D&D, and often played as the GM directing the players in the GM's play isn't really germane to the context of this thread, which is about GM importance (only germane in the sense that such importance is based entirely on assumptions, not requirements) and difficulty of being a GM.  I saw enough bad WoD games to know that being a WoD GM certainly wasn't hard, so long as you'd properly cowed your players into following your story.  Also required zero prep to do so.




Well I saw plenty of combat in plenty of WoD games... I mean how many Vampire Disciplines and Mage rotes were combat oriented?  And to claim Werewolf the Apocalypse wasn't about combat... uhm ok sure I guess there were some games like that.  I also remember stating up an NPC was the same as creating a character which wasn't exactly a quick process... I'll just chalk it up to us having different experiences.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Well I saw plenty of combat in plenty of WoD games... I mean how many Vampire Disciplines and Mage rotes were combat oriented?  And to claim Werewolf the Apocalypse wasn't about combat... uhm ok sure I guess there were some games like that.  I'll just chalk it up to different experiences




The primary reason prep was light IME is twofold: treasure wasn't a priority and so placement of same was trivial.  Dungeons weren't really a thing so mapping was also much lighter.  At worst, you tended to get a couple of "special" locales.

Both of those tend to substantially reduce prep compared to traditional D&D.  It was much closer to superheroic CHAMPIONS or V&V in terms of prep.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Nah, I'll just ignore you arguments, thanks.



Sounds good.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> The primary reason prep was light IME is twofold: treasure wasn't a priority and so placement of same was trivial.  Dungeons weren't really a thing so mapping was also much lighter.  At worst, you tended to get a couple of "special" locales.
> 
> Both of those tend to substantially reduce prep compared to traditional D&D.  It was much closer to superheroic CHAMPIONS or V&V in terms of prep.




You could be right, I'll be honest unlike the combat statement I actual don't have any experiences to contradict what you are saying here and it does seem plausible.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Well I saw plenty of combat in plenty of WoD games... I mean how many Vampire Disciplines and Mage rotes were combat oriented?  And to claim Werewolf the Apocalypse wasn't about combat... uhm ok sure I guess there were some games like that.  I also remember stating up an NPC was the same as creating a character which wasn't exactly a quick process... I'll just chalk it up to us having different experiences.



Which actually bolsters my argument!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Sure, I suppose.  Per NPC that wouldn't cut much time off the construction and would potentially introduce anachronisms you'd have to be watchful for.  If the campaign uses a few hundred NPCs the player sketch out, the savings might add up.



You, sir, are missing the point. Of course the DM can come up with that. What he can't do is port the knowledge directly into his player's heads. Or design an NPC that specifically represents an important goal or connection to one of the characters (well, he can...). Or give them the same sense of connection and ownership they get form doing it themselves.  It's not just NPCs, it's factions, politics, mysteries, anything and everything.

Also, it can be hard to be really creative all the time. I came up with that NPC on the fly, and I like it a lot, but if I did it six or seven times in a row it would lose a little something.

Anyway, the point isn't simply time savings up front, or even in general, although that will happen. When the players already know the faces, their role playing will be that much stronger. They will more quickly connect NPC/Faction to circumstance, or identify an NPC to go to for advice, information, or whatever. They might identify a mystery built into the setting they want to explore. Or they might decide to wade into faction politics and upset the apple cart. All things they already know about. That kind of character driven play doesn't happen as much without prior knowledge.

How many times have any of us decried the lack of player knowledge that accurately matches what the character would have? This is one solution.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> You, sir, are missing the point. Of course the DM can come up with that. What he can't do is port the knowledge directly into his player's heads. Or design an NPC that specifically represents an important goal or connection to one of the characters (well, he can...). Or give them the same sense of connection and ownership they get form doing it themselves.  It's not just NPCs, it's factions, politics, mysteries, anything and everything.
> 
> Also, it can be hard to be really creative all the time. I came up with that NPC on the fly, and I like it a lot, but if I did it six or seven times in a row it would lose a little something.
> 
> ...




Sure!  Building player engagement is a great goal!  Not the one we've been discussing though.  It is certainly a laudable result even if it doesn't save much time.  And having the player build NPCs their PC should be familiar with is also terrific.

You still have to sift through them for anachronisms eg. "Crown and Anchor?  Wasn't that established as the HQ of the rival guild?  He'd end up 6 inches shorter if he tried to hang out there!"


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Hah, it was the first X and X pub name that popped into my head. There's a Crown and Anchor in Buffalo that is reputed to have invented the deep fried chicken wing. Anyway, back on track.

People wanted to know how to reduce prep and offload some narrative responsibility onto the players. This approach does that through some time savings up front, and a bunch of prep time saved on an ongoing basis because the usual result of the co-op approach is better engagement with a narrower set of arcs. If you layer on some better mechanics to reward character and goal-oriented roleplaying and character decision making you start to move in a significant way toward a more balanced responsibility for the narrative. It gets even better if you can let go of the reins a little and allow the players some direct input into the fiction somehow. Personally, I like a BitD flashback mechanic for this, modified a little for D&D, but there are a ton of ways to do it.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hah, it was the first X and X pub name that popped into my head. There's a Crown and Anchor in Buffalo that is reputed to have invented the deep fried chicken wing. Anyway, back on track.
> 
> People wanted to know how to reduce prep and offload some narrative responsibility onto the players. This approach does that through some time savings up front, and a bunch of prep time saved on an ongoing basis because the usual result of the co-op approach is better engagement with a narrower set of arcs. If you layer on some better mechanics to reward character and goal-oriented roleplaying and character decision making you start to move in a significant way toward a more balanced responsibility for the narrative. It gets even better if you can let go of the reins a little and allow the players some direct input into the fiction somehow. Personally, I like a BitD flashback mechanic for this, modified a little for D&D, but there are a ton of ways to do it.




Roleplay and decision-making don't affect prep time much.  It can affect how much the GM feels necessary to sketch out in broad terms, if the GM simply can't know which way the players will jump in the next session.  

I had one group that would announce where they expected to go at the end of a session.  And then they would do something arbitrarily different when the next session came around.  It wasn't malicious, the group had poor discipline and a power struggle between certain players who wanted to accomplish entirely different goals.  It did tend to waste my prep time, however.

Player input works in some types of campaigns better than others.  One of the ways I often introduce extra player input is through Lion Rampant's Whimsy Cards (as an aside the only card I have never seen played is the "Take over as GM" card).  I've adopted them for many campaigns over the years where the primary focus isn't player exploration.  One advantage the cards offer is they are used during table play.  I find offering players opportunities to engage with the game away from the table gets some interest that remains theoretical.

Number and width of arcs depends much more on the player mix than anything else.  I've had games where the players helped construct the background and built a weave of interconnections pre-play -- only to have the 6 players jump into 7 different directions once play began.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hah, it was the first X and X pub name that popped into my head. There's a Crown and Anchor in Buffalo that is reputed to have invented the deep fried chicken wing. Anyway, back on track.
> 
> People wanted to know how to reduce prep and offload some narrative responsibility onto the players. This approach does that through some time savings up front, and a bunch of prep time saved on an ongoing basis because the usual result of the co-op approach is better engagement with a narrower set of arcs. If you layer on some better mechanics to reward character and goal-oriented roleplaying and character decision making you start to move in a significant way toward a more balanced responsibility for the narrative. It gets even better if you can let go of the reins a little and allow the players some direct input into the fiction somehow. Personally, I like a BitD flashback mechanic for this, modified a little for D&D, but there are a ton of ways to do it.




I think there's a Crown and Anchor everywhere.  The point is more that what each player knows/remembers will vary and someone* needs to be tasked with making certain the whole remains coherent.



* Someone who has the official history/notes and can make the all the cross connections.  Not necessarily the GM, but often the GM.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

I never said it was a cure-all, and players excel at the throwing of curve balls regardless of what is being played.  I should probably be specific about what I use this same for myself - the kind of game I'm talking about is very urban for the most part, with the intention of that urban setting being the primary setting for a longer term game.  That's one of the reasons I only loosely tether my initial prep to specific locations. I prefer to build story elements around characters, who are naturally mobile.

If the players take responsibility for crafting the parts of the setting that are naturally indexed to their character the "who remembers what" problem is less of an issue. The right characters generally have the correct setting knowledge. Obviously I'm not offering this idea as a one-size fits all answer. Someone asked "how would that even work" so I threw out a couple of ideas.

I like the cards idea. Inspired by Castle Falkenstein I'm currently monkeying around with using a tarot deck for a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> And, yes, if you have a constructed campaign with secrets hidden from the player but still unalterable aspects of the fictional world, then it is impossible to expect players to collaborate effectively, since you cannot allow any creation that violates the hidden secrets or your prepared, but unplayed, plot points and the players cannot know enough about things they don't know to be useful in providing information.



Exactly.

And seeing as any campaign I ever run or play in will, I hope, feature a great many DM-side secrets that the players will learn only through play, this whole concept of player-side setting construction becomes kinda moot; with the exception of minor pieces that won't and can't impact the main plot.



> Again, you've defined success so that it only favors your beliefs.  The counter argument is_ don't start with Conspiracy-X if you're going to build a collaborative game.  _Ruling that out to start seems more like sitting on the scale than placing a thumb on it.



Not just Conspiracy-X; your take here would rule out just about any game - regardless of system - that involves the PCs solving mysteries and learning as they go.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes if a complaint is from the complainant or just a white knight who then casually discards the argument when challenged.  My apologies.




*Mod Note:*

So... next time, if you think someone is inauthentic, rather than answer in kind, and then cast vague aspersions around while "apologizing"... just don't engage.

Really, folks.  If someone isn't your cup of tea, don't go snark.  Just walk away.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Of the top 100 reasons TSR drove off a cliff in the 90s, White Wolf isn’t in the top 1,000.
> 
> It ranks somewhere south of “not understanding they had art assets” and barely north of “extravagant spending on 2-ply toilet paper.”



Wasn't really about how TSR failed as a business but about how the market looked at that time.


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I mean, seriously, game elitism in the service of supporting your preferred style of play?  Don't forget that TSR ran into trouble and sold to WotC because they lost market share against White Wolf, which didn't feature a game like D&D.  5e is a very good game -- bland enough to not rankle and just spicy enough to be enjoyable.  It's an absolute marketing success, although a good bit of that is serendipity rather than a comment of the quality of 5e.  5e is, undoubtedly, the current king of the market for RPGs, no close competitor.  I don't think saying that a very popular indie game without all of the benefits the current edition of 5e has is somehow lesser because it doesn't have as large a market share.  And I don't think that you, as someone who likes 5e, inherits any legitimacy from this.  Nor does 5e inherit any more legitimacy because people like it.




What I meant by that is the D&D playstyle is far more popular. I like dungeon world, my players do not. That is often the case with games outside of D&D. I like them and talk people into playing for a short time but everyone wants to go back to D&D pretty quickly.

From my experiences most players do not like other games all that much unless they keep to what D&D does.

I find this good"I do like D&D a lot" and bad"I would like to play other games and other play styles far more than I get to.

I think I got four or five sessions in with Dungeon World and actually only just started to understand the system when the guys came to me with"we want to go back to D&D".

Same thing happened with Fate,Savage Worlds and 13th Age.

A lot of it was the players seem really comfortable with me doing all the work. When I asked for player input for Dungeon World for example and said"You come from a Elven village? What was its name and what was it like there ....it didn't go over well, that player got slightly hostile as if I was trying to put something on him".


----------



## GameOgre (Feb 27, 2020)

I love the OSR games as well. Mostly because for whatever reason I do not have to spend as much time making "encounters". I would love to play Swords and Wizardry or AD&D or even Castles and Crusades but my players have no interest in those. They pretty much just want to play whatever D&D is the latest. Back in 4E it was the same way. 

One of the games i'm really wanting to give a go is the Cypher system. I have heard it's very low prep as far as making mechanical encounters and game mechanic prep.

I don't mind imaginative game prep. That is fun to me. Creating fun and unique npc's and monsters,traps and stories ....its the mechanical boring turning that stuff into crunch that gets me down.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are. The point isn't just to have the players do this btw, it's to sit around a table and build setting together, expanding on each other's ideas, connecting things, playing yes and... - there's more in play there than just transferring paperwork from the DMs pile to the player's. Something like this:
> 
> _*Krom Stonehand* - leader of the local Bashers - big, bald, and unsavory, a reputation for savagery and strangely cute tattoos (just don't mention them), likes knives
> 
> ...




Does anyone actually care if the players know a given NPC's statblock?  Seriously?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And seeing as any campaign I ever run or play in will, I hope, feature a great many DM-side secrets that the players will learn only through play, this whole concept of player-side setting construction becomes kinda moot; with the exception of minor pieces that won't and can't impact the main plot.
> 
> Not just Conspiracy-X; your take here would rule out just about any game - regardless of system - that involves the PCs solving mysteries and learning as they go.




Does a secret become less of a secret if one player knows it but the rest of the table doesn't?  If one player comes up with a secret, can't we trust the player to simply share that with the DM and not the rest of the group?  Well, I suppose that depends on group.  Obviously, some here figure that there is no way to trust the players that much (players will game the system I believe was one comment).  

Meh, again, if we make it clear at the outset that "gaming the system" is rather pointless, I find that most players are mature enough to actually step up to the challenge.  But, yeah, that does rather fly in the face of traditional gaming wisdom.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Does a secret become less of a secret if one player knows it but the rest of the table doesn't?  If one player comes up with a secret, can't we trust the player to simply share that with the DM and not the rest of the group?  Well, I suppose that depends on group.  Obviously, some here figure that there is no way to trust the players that much (players will game the system I believe was one comment).



You're either forgetting or conveniently ignoring that trying to gain an advantage is part of a player's duty, as it were.

More to the point, if I-as-player come up with a secret and share it with the DM, I still know the secret - which while fine if only other players run through that bit, largely kills my enjoyment of playing through it.  And sure, I could play as if I didn't know the secret, but then I'm forced to separate player knowledge from character knowledge which ideally is something I should never have to do and in practice is something I should have to do as little as possible.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 27, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> WoD was an attempt to feature character focused play.  It didn't provide a robust toolkit to do so, so people familiar with GM directed play just kept playing it that way, because you could.  And, there are absolutely better toolkits for the goal of WoD out there.  Burning Wheel gets pretty darned close to the character-focused promise of WoD.  As does Dogs in the Vineyard.  The Powered by the Apocalypse games also do a much better job of it.




I've never thought about WoD this way, but what you say here makes sense. I never ran a WoD game, but I did do some prep for one (which game never came to pass) and coming from a D&D background I was initially skeptical if I could run it properly because the format of the game (I felt) was so very different.

My inexperience had led me to believe it required much more pre-planning INITIALLY than a D&D game but I see now it doesn't have to be. Having read enough of these types of threads, I can definitely see this being played with some of the toolkits provided in the indie game market or some modern games, where prep work is like 5 lines jotted down - which is how our Storyteller prepped for it during our games then. 

Old games, made new. 

Man I still want to run one of these set in Constantinople during the times of the Crusades.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 27, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> What I meant by that is the D&D playstyle is far more popular. I like dungeon world, my players do not. That is often the case with games outside of D&D. I like them and talk people into playing for a short time but everyone wants to go back to D&D pretty quickly.
> 
> From my experiences most players do not like other games all that much unless they keep to what D&D does.
> 
> ...




This post! +1

Many of the posters who ONLY advocate for the so-called _player-driven games _(@Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer have their feet planted firmly in both camps so not them) do not seem to understand this desire by players.

I feel they're always entering threads with their singular axiom 'GM Force = negative = bad DM' but are not willing to accept that many players out there are actually reluctant/resistant to games where the driving force of the game becomes the players' responsibility with much less overhead expected by the GM.

And I'm willing to take responsibilty that perhaps not everyone is a great GM for these new toolkits (certainly not initially), but I mean that takes practise, but if the players are not willing to give you that opportunity then...


----------



## macd21 (Feb 27, 2020)

Sadras said:


> This post! +1
> 
> Many of the posters who ONLY advocate for the so-called _player-driven games _(@Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer have their feet planted firmly in both camps so not them) do not seem to understand this desire by players.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I feel like they’re starting from a fundamentally flawed position: that there’s something wrong with the GM being the most important person at the table.

The GM is generally the most important person at the table because they put in the most work at the game usually collapses without them. “But it doesn’t need to be that way,” critics contend - and it doesn’t. But it is, because it works, and people are usually happy with the way things are. “But you could implement X, Y or Z to reduce the GM’s burden,” they say - and you could, except that X, Y and Z reduce the fun of many GM’s and players, or in some cases make it harder, not easier, to run a game. Many people are already implementing X, Y or Z in their games _to the extent they are comfortable with them,_ but still leaving the GM with the most critical role at the table.

Yes, you can probably come up with a system and a social contract that results in a collaborative story telling experience that results in everyone at the table as equal participants, and the find a group of gamers who would love it. And meanwhile everyone else goes back to playing DnD, because they enjoyed it more. The GM being the most important person at the table _isn’t a problem._ It’s resulted in enjoyable gameplay for decades.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> It's less than ideal if you're trying to build long term story lines but might not remember an important detail in the moment. For example, in one of my groups two of the players went on their honeymoon recently, so we didn't play. There had been some scheduling issues prior to that as well (Superbowl, etc.) so last weekend was the first time we gamed in over a month and I was really shakey on the details.
> 
> Thankfully, I was able to skim over my session notes and remind myself of everything that had transpired that I consider relevant to the campaign. If a player had taken the notes, they might not even have been available to me between sessions, and even had they been it would have been totally up to fate whether they'd grok'd all of the relevant details or skipped something that seemed trivial then but would bear fruit down the road (I like to use foreshadowing).



I still incline to the view that, if no one can remember it, it doesn't matter. Conversely, a necessary condition of something being relevant is that it can be remembered by those at the table. If the players don't remember something, they're not going to leverage it (which is the case that I was responding to in my post that you quoted).

I'm not saying that GMing doesn't require any note-taking - it may or it may not, depending on context and circumstances, how much of what matters is recorded on various sheets (eg do we need to note that so-and-so suffered a broken shoulder if _broken shoulder_ is a condition recorded on the appropriate character sheet?), etc. But I think the degree of note-taking required can be exaggerated, and that the idea that it is necessary to so for the players to leverage some detail doesn't seem right for me.

Nor do I think the degree of prep really helps here. The main thing that needs to be noted is _stuff that matters_ and _stuff that changes_. And that is likely to have to be done even if there is prep. In my personal experience, doing prep doesn't change the amount of session notes I need to take.



Fanaelialae said:


> For example, in the session before last they met an old miner 49er NPC* who I made up on the spot*. The party paladin took a liking to him, and after a brief conversation, *gave him a 50 gp gem* to fund his next expedition. They're only 3rd level, so that's a lot of money to him (he's still saving for plate mail). A month of two down the line though, he's going to find that the miner has hit it rich, and is quite grateful to the paladin. I'd never remember such a minor detail without my notes. The paladin player might note it down, but if another player were taking notes they could easily think a minor NPC like that were merely set dressing.



I already posted upthread that (in my view) the main challenge in GMing is juggling the fiction. The scenario you have set out is an example of that. But it doesn't seem to bear upon the prep issue or whether extensive notes are particularly necessary in a low-prep game (which is what I was discussing with @Imaro): given what I've bolded, I don't see how this shows that preparation is necessary or makes things easier. _Even if the existence of the miner was recorded in some pre-authored notes_, you would have to record the interaction with the paladin and it's significance.

To me this example does seem to relate to a different aspect of this conversation, namely,who is responsible for driving play. There are systems in which the paladin's treatment of the NPC would be something that the player is responsible for recording on the PC sheet in some form. Even if that's not the case (eg D&D PC sheets tend not to have a "relationships" box), if the player does hope to leverage this relationship down the track then I would expect him/her to make a note of it. But as you present it this doesn't seem to be an instance of extensive notes being required; it doesn't seem that prep would have made any difference; and your reason for making the notes is not that the players are going to leverage something later on.

It just seems to be an example of a GM keeping track of material to use for subsequent framing and consequences, which are some of the aspects of "fiction juggling" that I identified upthread.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> You're either forgetting or conveniently ignoring that trying to gain an advantage is part of a player's duty, as it were.
> 
> More to the point, if I-as-player come up with a secret and share it with the DM, I still know the secret - which while fine if only other players run through that bit, largely kills my enjoyment of playing through it.  And sure, I could play as if I didn't know the secret, but then I'm forced to separate player knowledge from character knowledge which ideally is something I should never have to do and in practice is something I should have to do as little as possible.




Does it kill your enjoyment if you are the DM?

And, is the price worth the DM no longer having to spend 99% of the effort to keep the campaign going?  IOW, is your separation of character and player knowledge so valuable that it's more important than the DM's time?

And, "trying to gain an advantage" is most certainly NOT part of a player's duty.  At least, not at my table.

Look, it's like @Ovinomancer has stated. You folks have taken an impossible position.  If there is 100% unwillingness on the parts of the participants to compromise on anything, then, sure, it's going to be the status quo and the DM has to do 99% of the away from the table work.  The problem is, you are starting from that position.  If we're willing to compromise, yes, the game will be a bit different, but, it will also mean that DMing becomes significantly easier and the barrier to entry for DM's lowers significantly.

How much is that worth?  Is it worth you knowing one of the four (or more) secrets at the table?  I would say it's a pretty small price to pay.  Obviously though, there are differing opinions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

I'm reading a lot of posts that seem like they could be summarised: _if you want exploratory play, in which the main thing the players do is learn the content of the notes the GM has made during prep time, then GMing will be a lot of work_. That seems to be trivially true. If someone wants to know how they can reduce the GM's prep burden, then I think they have to accept that we're going to be moving away from that italcised paradigm of play.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Look, it's a spectrum.  There are all sorts of options here.  From the very traditional where the DM is the source of 99% of the work, all the way to sitting around the campfire, pass the story stick type games (which I don't particularly enjoy either).  It's not binary.

Take the example of the town adventure.  Ok, we have the traditional setup where the DM spends 4 hours prepping the town.

Or, we step back a bit.  At the end of the last session, the players were just entering town.  So, the DM plays a variation of 2 Truths and a Lie.  Each player has to tell the DM (probably through email or a note) one thing that their character believes is true about this town.  Now, the DM can decide what is true and what is not and then prepare based on the input from the players.  So, it takes a bit of the workload off the DM, but, not much.  

Or, we step back a lot.  At the end of the session, the players were just entering town.  The DM asks each player, say within the next three days (presuming a weekly game) to give him a one page scenario in the town.  Two, three encounters, a bar, something.  Anything.  The DM then stitches these four scenarios (possibly making changes) into the town, maybe even adding a scenario of his own.  Now, not every scenario is going to get used.  So, the unused scenarios go into the DM's hand folder for use later.  

Repeat that every couple of sessions and the DM winds up with hundreds of scenarios/scenes/NPC's in very short order and has to do virtually zero prep.  Heck, these can be carried forward into the next campaign as well.  Sure, it means that any given player might have a better insight into a given scenario, or, maybe not.  The DM can certainly change things as needed.

Note, none of these are the "right" way of doing things.  Just options.  I'm sure there are tons more.  But, to me, the notion that we must stick with the traditional "DM does 99% of the away from the table work" is not necessarily the best solution.  It's one solution.  And it has strengths and weaknesses.  To me, the weaknesses - DM workload and burnout - more than outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> What I meant by that is the D&D playstyle is far more popular. I like dungeon world, my players do not. That is often the case with games outside of D&D. I like them and talk people into playing for a short time but everyone wants to go back to D&D pretty quickly.
> 
> From my experiences most players do not like other games all that much unless they keep to what D&D does.
> 
> ...



That's a MUCH better point!


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I still incline to the view that, if no one can remember it, it doesn't matter. Conversely, a necessary condition of something being relevant is that it can be remembered by those at the table. If the players don't remember something, they're not going to leverage it (which is the case that I was responding to in my post that you quoted).
> 
> I'm not saying that GMing doesn't require any note-taking - it may or it may not, depending on context and circumstances, how much of what matters is recorded on various sheets (eg do we need to note that so-and-so suffered a broken shoulder if _broken shoulder_ is a condition recorded on the appropriate character sheet?), etc. But I think the degree of note-taking required can be exaggerated, and that the idea that it is necessary to so for the players to leverage some detail doesn't seem right for me.
> 
> ...




No one remembering _right now_ doesn't mean no one remembers on their way to the fridge for a drink.

Nor does it mean that the fact isn't salient in undershoring a whole bunch of previous precedents and actions.

Nor does it mean the it won't become pivotal again in the future.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually care if the players know a given NPC's statblock?  Seriously?




Depends entirely on the NPC and their role in the campaign.  One 1e game I ran, the crown prince was accused of killing a prostitute and the PCs were tasked to (very quietly) ascertain his guilt.  It would have blown the scenario wide open if the players knew a new member of court -- the sister to the prince's betrothed -- was a 7th level Illusionist.

In a 3.X campaign, the local shopkeeper the PCs liked and used to sell their goods was a spymaster for the duke.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

macd21 said:


> Yeah, I feel like they’re starting from a fundamentally flawed position: that there’s something wrong with the GM being the most important person at the table.
> 
> The GM is generally the most important person at the table because they put in the most work at the game usually collapses without them. “But it doesn’t need to be that way,” critics contend - and it doesn’t. But it is, because it works, and people are usually happy with the way things are. “But you could implement X, Y or Z to reduce the GM’s burden,” they say - and you could, except that X, Y and Z reduce the fun of many GM’s and players, or in some cases make it harder, not easier, to run a game. Many people are already implementing X, Y or Z in their games _to the extent they are comfortable with them,_ but still leaving the GM with the most critical role at the table.
> 
> Yes, you can probably come up with a system and a social contract that results in a collaborative story telling experience that results in everyone at the table as equal participants, and the find a group of gamers who would love it. And meanwhile everyone else goes back to playing DnD, because they enjoyed it more. The GM being the most important person at the table _isn’t a problem._ It’s resulted in enjoyable gameplay for decades.



I'm not certain it's an "enjoy it more" as much as it's "what I know."  It's hard to, as a group with a near mono-experience in play, shift to a new style of play in a satisfactory way.  This is trivially true, as ot's hard to be good at a thing your first try.  This results in a poor experience which is reinforcing.  I've seen a lot of people say things about their foray into other games that leap out at me this way.  Heck, I bounced off of other games until it 'clicked' in my thinking I needed to have some very different assumptions about play.  I still have preferences, though, so that remains a valid point.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I'm reading a lot of posts that seem like they could be summarised: _if you want exploratory play, in which the main thing the players do is learn the content of the notes the GM has made during prep time, then GMing will be a lot of work_. That seems to be trivially true. If someone wants to know how they can reduce the GM's prep burden, then I think they have to accept that we're going to be moving away from that italcised paradigm of play.




Absolutely! But, it is a common style of play that many tables enjoy.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Depends entirely on the NPC and their role in the campaign.  One 1e game I ran, the crown prince was accused of killing a prostitute and the PCs were tasked to (very quietly) ascertain his guilt.  It would have blown the scenario wide open if the players knew a new member of court -- the sister to the prince's betrothed -- was a 7th level Illusionist.
> 
> In a 3.X campaign, the local shopkeeper the PCs liked and used to sell their goods was a spymaster for the duke.




But, even then, no one is saying that the DM can never prepare anything.  So, none of these scenarios are impossible.  The DM can still do stuff too.  It's just that, in my proposed method, the DM isn't doing 99% of the work.  

Let's say, though, that one of the players proposed the crown prince scenario.  And as part of that, the player introduced the sister that was a 7th level illusionist.  Remember, the DM is SUPPOSED to change stuff.  So, wouldn't the simplest solution be to use that scenario but change who the illusionist is?  Or, hey, even more interestingly, add a second illusionist that is the actual culprit?  So, now the party is chasing down the sister, who is being framed for framing the prince.  Layers of the onion to peel back.

It doesn't seem to me to be too much work to keep things interesting.  You've got the stat block of a 7th level illusionist already since the player gave you one.  Change up a couple of spells, and poof, now you have two.  Several sessions worth of prep all done for you.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I still incline to the view that, if no one can remember it, it doesn't matter. Conversely, a necessary condition of something being relevant is that it can be remembered by those at the table. If the players don't remember something, they're not going to leverage it (which is the case that I was responding to in my post that you quoted).
> 
> I'm not saying that GMing doesn't require any note-taking - it may or it may not, depending on context and circumstances, how much of what matters is recorded on various sheets (eg do we need to note that so-and-so suffered a broken shoulder if _broken shoulder_ is a condition recorded on the appropriate character sheet?), etc. But I think the degree of note-taking required can be exaggerated, and that the idea that it is necessary to so for the players to leverage some detail doesn't seem right for me.
> 
> ...



I disagree that it doesn't matter. In one of the newbie groups that I run, the guys like to get a bit inebriated during game. I don't mind. 

Sometimes they remember things more in the way they wish they'd occurred rather than how they've actually occurred. When that happens I usually tell them that doesn't sound quite right and I check my notes, then let them know what actually happened.

These things can have significant bearing on the campaign. So at least part of it is about keeping the game on track. Not in the sense of a railroad, but rather in making sure that the players don't declare the score 3:2 when it was in fact 2:3 (or whatever). 

Maybe you'd be fine with retconning the score if that's how your players remember it and you aren't sure, but not me. You're opening yourself up to someone remembering at any time that it was in fact 2:3, and then having all sorts of inconsistencies that cascaded from there (generally, at that point, it's better to accept the retcon and just go with it, but that undermines the consistency and verisimilitude of the campaign).

Prep doesn't impact my note taking directly, except in the sense that I need to take more notes when I'm improvising. For example, if I prepped an NPC named Bernard, I can just jot down that they made a deal with Bernard. If Bernard is an NPC that I've made up on the spot, and I described him as a flamboyant gnome with red hair, then it would be best if I wrote that down so that the next time they meet him I don't describe him as a cheery blonde halfling. Maybe the players wouldn't catch the inconsistency. But maybe they would. I know I've caught inconsistencies in other GM's games, but said nothing if it was minor because I didn't want to be impolite. It was nonetheless not ideal, like the veneer on the walls was peeling.

Can a DM take too many notes? Sure, pretty much anything can be overdone. A GM can make their world too realistic, barraging the players with detailed minutia until they fall asleep from boredom. That doesn't mean that injecting extra details for the sake of realism is a bad thing, it just means that most things are best in moderation. 

Similarly, taking notes is a good idea to consider. I know, personally speaking, that my game improved noticably once I started taking notes during game. The first campaign I ever did it for, the players complimented me saying it was the best campaign I'd ever run. Was it all the notes? Doubtful. But they undoubtedly helped me provide a higher degree of fidelity and persistence than had been present in prior campaigns, because I wasn't trying to remember over a year's worth of sessions from memory.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, even then, no one is saying that the DM can never prepare anything.  So, none of these scenarios are impossible.  The DM can still do stuff too.  It's just that, in my proposed method, the DM isn't doing 99% of the work.
> 
> Let's say, though, that one of the players proposed the crown prince scenario.  And as part of that, the player introduced the sister that was a 7th level illusionist.  Remember, the DM is SUPPOSED to change stuff.  So, wouldn't the simplest solution be to use that scenario but change who the illusionist is?  Or, hey, even more interestingly, add a second illusionist that is the actual culprit?  So, now the party is chasing down the sister, who is being framed for framing the prince.  Layers of the onion to peel back.
> 
> It doesn't seem to me to be too much work to keep things interesting.  You've got the stat block of a 7th level illusionist already since the player gave you one.  Change up a couple of spells, and poof, now you have two.  Several sessions worth of prep all done for you.




Actually, the PCs found the crown prince guilty and he was exiled from the kingdom.  They never twigged that there might be a bad actor attempting to frame him.  It wasn't even that good a frame.

Had a player offered the scenario, that wouldn't have happened regardless of who the framer was.

That written, can the players take over creating some NPC details?  Sure!  Occasionally, a few have even offered.  That generally offers marginal savings though.  Some is better than none, I guess.  The more pivotal the NPC the more time I need to spend on it and the less likely a player construction is sensible.  Bob and Doug, the guards at the gate to the wintry land, won't take more than a few moments because they'll either get generic stat blocks or none at all until they need them.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, even then, no one is saying that the DM can never prepare anything.  So, none of these scenarios are impossible.  The DM can still do stuff too.  It's just that, in my proposed method, the DM isn't doing 99% of the work.
> 
> Let's say, though, that one of the players proposed the crown prince scenario.  And as part of that, the player introduced the sister that was a 7th level illusionist.  Remember, the DM is SUPPOSED to change stuff.  So, wouldn't the simplest solution be to use that scenario but change who the illusionist is?  Or, hey, even more interestingly, add a second illusionist that is the actual culprit?  So, now the party is chasing down the sister, who is being framed for framing the prince.  Layers of the onion to peel back.
> 
> It doesn't seem to me to be too much work to keep things interesting.  You've got the stat block of a 7th level illusionist already since the player gave you one.  Change up a couple of spells, and poof, now you have two.  Several sessions worth of prep all done for you.



I don't have a problem with players making up NPCs or places (for example, as part of their background). I'm glad when they do it, since it's something to hook on to that they're invested in.

That said, I don't really see the benefit to what you're describing. I could go on the internet and get an adventure or NPC with less effort than assigning "homework" to the players. With the added benefit that there's a very high chance that it will be something the players haven't read and will therefore be able to explore without having to suspend their disbelief. Either way, I still have to analyze the material, and make any desired adjustments. I just don't see how this would save me work. I don't even usually run modules since in the time it takes me to prepare one module, I can come up with multiple adventures for personal use.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think a big part of this question can be in the world building stage. If the players have contributed prior to the start of play, and then continue to contribute during play, toward world building, then I think that can help a GM greatly.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think there's a lot to be said for asking the players to tell you why their PCs are where they are, and/or what they hope to be doing.

The strongest version of this (that I know, at least) is the "kicker": a player-authored event that is part of PC-gen, and which the GM is obliged to make central to play, that makes an evocative or thematically-significant choice necessary for the player who authored it. I used this technique to start a 4e Dark Sun game. Here's how it went:

The main constraint I imposed was that each kicker somehow had to locate the PC within Tyr in the context of the Sorcerer-King having been overthrown. The reason for this constraint was (i) I wanted to be able to use the 4e campaign books, and (ii) D&D relies pretty heavily on group play, and so I didn't want the PCs to be too separated spatially or temporally.

The player of the barbarian came up with something first. Paraphrasing slightly, it went like this:

I was about to cut his head of in the arena, to the adulation of the crowd, when the announcement came that the Sorcerer-King was dead, and they all looked away.​
Notice how this also answered the question that another player had asked, namely, how long since the Sorcerer-King's overthrow: it's just happened!

The other gladiator - whose name is "Twenty-nine", that being his number on the inventory of slaves owned by his master - had been mulling over something about his master having been killed, and so we settled on the following:

I came back from the slave's privies, ready to receive my master's admonition to do a good job before I went out into the arena. But when I got back to the pen my master was dead. So I took the purse with 14 gp from his belt.​
(The 14 gp was the character's change after spending his starting money on gear.)

Discussion of PC backgrounds and the like had already established that the eladrin PC was an envoy from The Lands Within The Wind, aiming to link up with the Veiled Alliance and thereby to take steps to save his homeland from the consequences of defiling. So his kicker was:

My veiled alliance contact is killed in front of me as we are about to meet​
(A lot of death accompanying the revolution!)​
In our Cthulhu Dark sessions we haven't used kickers as such. But in our first session I asked each of the players to explain what their PC was doing - we had a report, a longshoreman and a law firm secretary. The reporter's player decided that he was investigating rumours of financial irregularity in a prominent shipping company. The secretary's player decided that she had been sent out to collect some important documents - from a manager at the docks, naturally! And while the reporter was snooping around at the docks I got the longshoreman's player to introduce his character - he started narrating his side of an argument with an employer about danger money given that two men had already disappeared while working on a particular vessel. (Or something along those lines - it's been a little while.)

Because Cthulhu Dark _doesn't_ particularly depend upon party play, it was enough for the players to somewhat co-locate their PCs and I then worked with what they gave me to weave their various storylines together. They did end up cooperating towards the end of the scenario, as increasingly shocking events through them together. Which had a good feel for a Cthulhu game.

Anyway, if this sort of thing can be done in 4e D&D and in Cthulhu Dark, I don't see why it couldn't be done in 5e D&D also.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> harking back to some half-remembered detail that for whatever reason has suddenly gained greater (potential) sgnificance is commonplace. And it's not at all unreasonable for them to expect that if they go back to it the information will be consistent with what they got the first time because the GM actually has something to reference beyond just her own memory.



If it's half-remembered, how are the players going to know that what the GM says now differs from the other (forgotten) half?

I seriously think this concern is being exaggerated. Yes, notes are generally necessary to support continuity. But they don't have to be extensive. And it's not a reason in favour of extensive notes that people might want to go back to something later on - at that point it can be recreated together if necessary. (I've done this in actual play. It's not a big deal.)



Lanefan said:


> These play reports from your games that you post now and then - if you do those in that kind of detail for every session and post 'em where you and your players can read 'em, you're already in much better shape than most.



Those are done from memory, not notes, and their main purpose is to provide material for reflection on/discussion of actual play. That's why they're not just records of the fiction, which would normally be quite a bit briefer.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Anyway, if this sort of thing can be done in 4e D&D and in Cthulhu Dark, I don't see why it couldn't be done in 5e D&D also.




5e has backgrounds, personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws and many of their AP's provide backgrounds that strengthen the ties between characters and the AP's. The current debate is about sharing ongoing prep not only at character creation.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> The players creating NPCs unless the NPCs are fluff to begin with, grants too much insight and ability to build in their own entry paths.





Fenris-77 said:


> A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are.



In D&D 4e, at least, it's generally not a big deal if a player knows a stat-block. What's dramatic in 4e is the way things play out, not the sprigning of surprises. I don't know how different 5e is in this respect.

But in any event in 5e, as in 4e, I think statblocks are mostly interesting for combat. (Generally when I see 5e statblocks they don't include Ideals, Bonds or Flaws that would form part of social resolution.) The stuff that Fenris-77 has suggested is ample to run a NPC in a D&D non-combat situation.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

I wasn't suggesting that the stat block somehow needs to remain incognito. If the NPC were someone the PC knew well, then I'd be more than happy for the player to also write the stats. It would make sense for that PC to know the NPC well enough to, say, know how they fight, or have a pretty good idea how smart or strong they are. For NPCs who the PC doesn't know that well I'd probably move the stat part over to the GM as it allows for a little more uncertainty about the NPCs exact capabilities. The reason I like this whole idea so much is that is does a great job baking PC knowledge in right from the start and in a way that reflects pretty accurately the ranges of how well you might know a major actor in the setting.

I can see why some people might struggle with this whole notion if the games they play and enjoy are things like mega dungeons and hex crawl exploration. Those games are cool too, but they often lean in to the simulationist roots of the game pretty heavily, and quite often don't put a huge premium on character background and personality. That's not a criticism at all either, just the nature of those games.

@pemerton - yeah, the backgrounds and inspiration system is where I'd look to support 3rd pillar play for sure. I think that system could use some help too, which is when I'd start looking at a game like FATE maybe, or perhaps PbtA, to buff that up and provide some stronger tools for non-combat play and action resolution.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> No one remembering _right now_ doesn't mean no one remembers on their way to the fridge for a drink.
> 
> Nor does it mean that the fact isn't salient in undershoring a whole bunch of previous precedents and actions.
> 
> Nor does it mean the it won't become pivotal again in the future.



If someone remembers it on their way to the fridge, then why can't they write it down? Or just commit it to memory?

And I still don't see how this is an argument in favour of prep. However much prep is done, there will be stuff that happens during play - outcomes of situations, details made up on the spot, whatever - that someone might later care about, but that weren't written down in the course of prep.



Fanaelialae said:


> These things can have significant bearing on the campaign. So at least part of it is about keeping the game on track. Not in the sense of a railroad, but rather in making sure that the players don't declare the score 3:2 when it was in fact 2:3 (or whatever).
> 
> Maybe you'd be fine with retconning the score if that's how your players remember it and you aren't sure, but not me. You're opening yourself up to someone remembering at any time that it was in fact 2:3, and then having all sorts of inconsistencies that cascaded from there (generally, at that point, it's better to accept the retcon and just go with it, but that undermines the consistency and verisimilitude of the campaign).



I think I'm missing something here. Misremembering the score is a metaphor - what is it a metaphor for?

If everyone at the table accepts that Bernard, who was introduced as a gnome, is actually a halfling, what's the problem? If someone remembers part way through the scenario that something got mixed up that's a different story obviously, but how big a risk is that? How often does it happen? If we're talking about whether GMing needs to be hard or not, what level of prophylaxis against possible problems do we think is appropriate?

In my Traveller game, when the PCs assaulted a military outpost, it was important to know what range various people were from one another, because Traveller needs that information for its combat resolution system. It was generated randomly, during play, using the appropriate mechanical process. But once the combat is resolved, there's no need to have that information any more. It's almost certainly never going to come up again.

The PCs have bribed NPCs, tricked them and in some cases swindled them. But from my point of view most of those NPCs are done - I've got no interest in re-introducing them into the game, and the players don't seem to either. Of course if a player were to wonder, "What ever happened to that guy who we screwed out of such-and-such" then that might be my cue to bring the character back in. But at that point, why would I not follow the player's cue all the way? Even if their memory is faulty, if mine's no better then nothing is lost by going along with them.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the intricacy of some of these games that you and others are talking about. My judgements are based on what I've played myself, and what I've read (both modules for games, and reports by others of their play). I just don't see how _extensive _note-taking is necessary. And I don't see how, if the players aren't taking note of things that they might want to leverage, the GM taking notes is somehow necessary or even helpful to bringing about such leveraging.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Many of the posters who ONLY advocate for the so-called _player-driven games _(@Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer have their feet planted firmly in both camps so not them) do not seem to understand this desire by players.
> 
> I feel they're always entering threads with their singular axiom 'GM Force = negative = bad DM' but are not willing to accept that many players out there are actually reluctant/resistant to games where the driving force of the game becomes the players' responsibility with much less overhead expected by the GM.



To me, this seems to reinforce the points being made by @Hussar and @Ovinomancer: if the reason GMing is hard is because no one wants to adopt play techniques that might make it easier, then those people only have themselves to blame.

Conversely, if people want to make GMing easier there are obvious ways to go about that that (as far as I can see) are easily adaptable to 5e D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2020)

Sadras said:


> 5e has backgrounds, personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws and many of their AP's provide backgrounds that strengthen the ties between characters and the AP's. The current debate is about sharing ongoing prep not only at character creation.



I gave concrete examples of techniques that (i) I think are usable in 5e D&D and (ii) relieve the GM of the need to spend time "planning the adventure". It was intended to reinforce a post by @hawkeyefan which was (if I'm remembering properly) a response to some doubt that such stuff can be done in 5e D&D.

As far as I can tell there's nothing about 5e D&D that makes it, by default, more prep dependent than 4e D&D. When I used kickers to get things going in our 4e Dark Sun game I didn't need to do any prep. I already had some Monster Manuals with me, and so when I needed stat blocks I just opened them up. As far as the actual situation was concerned, well I got that from the players' kickers.

So what I have done is give a concrete example of how someone might run a 5e D&D game without having to prep an adventure. Which is answering the request put out by @GameOgre and @Nagol.

Obviously it is not going to be an exploration-heavy game in Nagol's sense. But if someone is asking _how can I have a prep-dependent game that doesn't depend on prep _then obviously I've got nothing to give them. But the task specification I was responding to was _5e D&D game_, not _prep-dependent game_.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In D&D 4e, at least, it's generally not a big deal if a player knows a stat-block. What's dramatic in 4e is the way things play out, not the sprigning of surprises. I don't know how different 5e is in this respect.
> 
> But in any event in 5e, as in 4e, I think statblocks are mostly interesting for combat. (Generally when I see 5e statblocks they don't include Ideals, Bonds or Flaws that would form part of social resolution.) The stuff that Fenris-77 has suggested is ample to run a NPC in a D&D non-combat situation.




I suspect even in 4e it is revealing that the NPC has a level and combat powers and isn't just a 'common person' or minion.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think I'm missing something here. Misremembering the score is a metaphor - what is it a metaphor for?



It isn't a metaphor so much as an example of the sort of thing that could easily be mixed up between sessions but have significant consequences in game. 


> If everyone at the table accepts that Bernard, who was introduced as a gnome, is actually a halfling, what's the problem? If someone remembers part way through the scenario that something got mixed up that's a different story obviously, but how big a risk is that? How often does it happen? If we're talking about whether GMing needs to be hard or not, what level of prophylaxis against possible problems do we think is appropriate?
> 
> In my Traveller game, when the PCs assaulted a military outpost, it was important to know what range various people were from one another, because Traveller needs that information for its combat resolution system. It was generated randomly, during play, using the appropriate mechanical process. But once the combat is resolved, there's no need to have that information any more. It's almost certainly never going to come up again.
> 
> ...



I think there's been a miscommunication because I never advocated for _extensive_ GM note taking. I am advocating for writing down anything that I (the GM) believe to be important. I think the mix up may have been because I said earlier in this thread that I sometimes take extensive notes when I am a _player_ (but that I would never expect such of anyone else).

As for why Bernard's description matters, it's because it lends to immersion. I don't want to start describing Bernard as a blind halfling and have some player ask, "Wasn't he a red headed gnome?" because that takes us all out of the moment. 

And yes, before I started taking notes this sort of thing did happen to me. Not often per se, but far more often than I would have liked. Writing it down saves me from those mistakes because it not only creates a record that I can check against, but also because the act of writing it down reinforces it in my memory (meaning I'm less likely to need to check my notes later).

Physical locations of bodies is fairly trivial information in most cases, so you're right in that case. Even if it becomes important, it's easy to say that someone (or something) moved the body. Someone's species is less prone to change.

I try to reuse NPCs when possible. I find it creates a sense of a persistent world. Players are also more likely to form relationships with NPCs if they make multiple appearances, even if they weren't really relevant in the first place. Not always, but often enough that it's a worthwhile technique IMO.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> If someone remembers it on their way to the fridge, then why can't they write it down? Or just commit it to memory?




Because they are at the fridge?  And they've remembered the issue AFTER it was relevant at the table as opposed to when at the table and it should have been recalled.  It is a TV trope for a reason.



> And I still don't see how this is an argument in favour of prep. However much prep is done, there will be stuff that happens during play - outcomes of situations, details made up on the spot, whatever - that someone might later care about, but that weren't written down in the course of prep.
> 
> <snip>




Sure!  But one of the sets of things I note is what previous facts were used to construct the situation.  So the fact that Timmy fell in the well near the barn will be noted if the scenario calls for his ghost to appear.  If the table mis-remembers and thinks the ghost must be coming from well on the neighbours property because that's where Timmy died, the scenario notes will correct them.  

A campaign with continuity is like a house of cards where each card is an outcome from a previous adventure.  Later adventures depend on the support of earlier outcomes.

It also helps to keep the table on the same page.  I get challenged on a detail maybe 1 in 3 sessions where my memory of the event is contrary to a player's.  About 1 in 3 times, I'm wrong.  The notes help keep everyone working with the same fiction.  Which also means the adventures continue to make sense within their history.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I gave concrete examples of techniques that (i) I think are usable in 5e D&D and (ii) relieve the GM of the need to spend time "planning the adventure". It was intended to reinforce a post by @hawkeyefan which was (if I'm remembering properly) a response to some doubt that such stuff can be done in 5e D&D.
> 
> As far as I can tell there's nothing about 5e D&D that makes it, by default, more prep dependent than 4e D&D. When I used kickers to get things going in our 4e Dark Sun game I didn't need to do any prep. I already had some Monster Manuals with me, and so when I needed stat blocks I just opened them up. As far as the actual situation was concerned, well I got that from the players' kickers.
> 
> ...




Agreed!  I made similar points way back in an early response to GameOgre's request.  The way to have a low-prep 5e game is to change the nature of the game and move it from player discovery to table discovery (play to see what happens).

Personally, I don't use D&D when I want to play that style of game.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:
			
		

> To me, this seems to reinforce the points being made by @Hussar and @Ovinomancer: if the reason GMing is hard is because no one wants to adopt play techniques that might make it easier, then those people only have themselves to blame.




You quoted my post so I'd like to point out that I'm refering to the desired playstyle by players not about GMing being hard* and how certain posters are unable to grasp why such players prefer that particular playstyle.

*I fail to see how you got that GMing is hard from my post.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I gave concrete examples of techniques that (i) I think are usable in 5e D&D and (ii) relieve the GM of the need to spend time "planning *the adventure*". It was intended to reinforce a post by @hawkeyefan which was (if I'm remembering properly) a response to some doubt that such stuff can be done in 5e D&D.
> 
> As far as I can tell there's nothing about 5e D&D that makes it, by default, more prep dependent than 4e D&D. When I used kickers to *get things going* in our 4e Dark Sun game I didn't need to do any prep. I already had some Monster Manuals with me, and so when I needed stat blocks I just opened them up. As far as the actual situation was concerned, well I got that from the players' kickers.
> 
> ...




Bold emphasis mine...I'm sure @GameOgre was not trying to _get things going_ for _an adventure._
Your kickers get one out the gate much like a decent backstory could - we are talking about ONGOING prep.
His 2-4 hour preparations are, I imagine, for many, if not every, sessions.

So once the out the gate happens, then what? The kickers you provided do not relieve prep once the game gets going. There will be more locales, more NPCs, deeper plots, foreshadowings, combats, setups/framing, mapping and twists....


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

Just a quick statement.

“Action Adventure (AA)” is not the same gaming subtype of TTRPGing as (I’m just going to call it) “Asymmetric Obstacle Course Marathon (AOCM).” We need a better name for that latter one!

4e, Cortex+, Blades, and Mouse Guard are fantastic for the former. You’ve got low prep, conflict-charged scene-based play, win conditions and loss conditions.

But, while those games each have “extra-scene resource management”, the conceits, different priorities, and the mental overhead assumed by all the participants are all just different than a game of the AOCM archetype.

Two problems that occur are:

1) People don’t know which they actually want! They think they want AA, but they really want AOCM...or vice versa.

2) People think they can just smash the two together and come away with something that satisfies both priorities simultaneously. Unfortunately, in the overwhelming % of instances the priorities and conceits if AA and AOCM are at tension (if not diametric opposition)...and it results in unsatisfying play for one or more participants.

(2) is a big one for me and it may be the primary reason why I have conversations with people on ENWorld (to discuss the machinery of how and why this happens, to develop a working framework of language to discuss this stuff, so we can help each other understand what is happening (mentally to the participants and physically within the play of the game) when we play various games.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

GameOgre said:


> A lot of it was the players seem really comfortable with me doing all the work. When I asked for player input for Dungeon World for example and said"You come from a Elven village? What was its name and what was it like there ....it didn't go over well, that player got slightly hostile as if I was trying to put something on him".




Okay, so this touches on the GM: Player workload topic significantly. For me, the above would be unacceptable in a player. That's not the "right" way to play, but it's they way me and my group play. Other play groups will have a much different expectation. 

It's only an issue if doing all the work is a problem for the GM. Many GMs seem to like having all the work to do. If so, that's great! Everyone at the table seems to have the same expectations as far as authorship and prep effort.

But whichever way you lean, this is a choice you've made. If someone wants to take all the game's burden on yourself, cool, more power to them....but I don't think that they still get to complain that GMing has to be hard.

If the GM wants less to do, or if the players want more.....that's where it becomes an issue and needs to be addressed in some way.



GameOgre said:


> I love the OSR games as well. Mostly because for whatever reason I do not have to spend as much time making "encounters". I would love to play Swords and Wizardry or AD&D or even Castles and Crusades but my players have no interest in those. They pretty much just want to play whatever D&D is the latest. Back in 4E it was the same way.
> 
> One of the games i'm really wanting to give a go is the Cypher system. I have heard it's very low prep as far as making mechanical encounters and game mechanic prep.
> 
> I don't mind imaginative game prep. That is fun to me. Creating fun and unique npc's and monsters,traps and stories ....its the mechanical boring turning that stuff into crunch that gets me down.




So it sounds to me like you're pretty much fine with playing D&D overall, but that occasionally you'd like to play something else. I'm curious....does anyone else in your group ever GM? Would they be willing to? 

As for the mechanical prep, I agree 100%. That's why I use the same statblocks with the names filed off for sooooo many NPCs. I've been using the "Archmage" for ever single wizard the PCs encounter for several levels now. I may change up what spells they have on the fly, but what makes them actually different from one another is the non-stat information...their motives and personality and so on. 

That's one of the shortcuts I'd really suggest. Statting up 9 NPCs is going to require a good amount of time and effort, but you can easily use the NPC stat blocks from the Monster Manual, Volo's, or any other source.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> IME, people generally do know what they want. They may not want to admit it, perhaps they haven't experienced it, but revealed preferences are a heck of a thing.
> 
> More often than not, we need to be very, very, very careful when we make this statement. Because it tends to be spoken with either an implied or explicit additional statement, "People don't know what they actually want (because if they did, they would want the same thing I do ... silly people!)."
> 
> ...




As an aside, a career in development taught that people often have a firm opinion about what they want, but are both inarticulate and often haven't given it substantial thought.  When I played silly bugger, I'd build what they said they wanted.  When I was being helpful, I'd work with them enough to tease out what would actually meet need/desire first.  That'd often take longer than the system changes.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually care if the players know a given NPC's statblock?  Seriously?




I do. There are NPCs in my campaigns with secrets, and they're in the statblocks. Maybe don't presume that everyone plays the same way you do.


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think there's a lot to be said for asking the players to tell you why their PCs are where they are, and/or what they hope to be doing.
> 
> (snip)




This is why I ask players for backstories. I at least want something I can tie into the campaign, to make the story actually about the players' characters, rather than some sort of Adventure Path for whichever characters show up. Sometimes I get more than I think I want, but I think I'd rather have that than no one gives me anything.


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Perhaps I'm underestimating the intricacy of some of these games that you and others are talking about. My judgements are based on what I've played myself, and what I've read (both modules for games, and reports by others of their play). I just don't see how _extensive _note-taking is necessary. And I don't see how, if the players aren't taking note of things that they might want to leverage, the GM taking notes is somehow necessary or even helpful to bringing about such leveraging.




You want to see notes from my campaigns, just PM me. My wife wrote them, not me (which is why I'm reluctant to just post a link), and they're kinda extensive (I think Erkonin #1 is approaching 500 pages), but maybe they'll give you an idea of how one can make character-driven play work in 5E.

Obviously (I guess) the offer is open to anyone interested.


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> To me, this seems to reinforce the points being made by @Hussar and @Ovinomancer: if the reason GMing is hard is because no one wants to adopt play techniques that might make it easier, then those people only have themselves to blame.
> 
> Conversely, if people want to make GMing easier there are obvious ways to go about that that (as far as I can see) are easily adaptable to 5e D&D.




Some of the ways that people are suggesting don't seem *to me* as though they'd make DMing easier *for me.* Probably others share this feeling, and I suspect that some of the frustration and irritation is (what seems to be) the blithe presumption that we haven't thought of these things or tried these things or given these things any consideration at all, and decided against them (or found they didn't work, in practice, for us).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Sadras said:


> 5e has backgrounds, personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws and many of their AP's provide backgrounds that strengthen the ties between characters and the AP's. The current debate is about sharing ongoing prep not only at character creation.




I get that there is a distinction, but shouldn't a lot of those elements carry on throughout the entire campaign? They likely will remain relevant for a long time. And if not....if something is resolved in some way, there's no reason you can't replace an existing Bond with another, etc. These things should give the DM material or themes to help shape play in an ongoing way.

In addition to the admittedly meager Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws system that 5E has, what if the players help with worldbuilding prior to the start of play? If they help flesh out NPCs and locations and organizations at the start of play, that means the DM won't have to do as much in play. We once did that for a 3E campaign, and one of the players created his wizard PC's master as a NPC....no stats, just a description and some general goals and attitudes.....and I used that NPC heavily for the first 3 or 4 levels of play. A lot of the adventures the PCs went on hinged on that NPC and were a natural outgrowth of his wants and desires. 

So even stuff that's done at the very start can indeed have an ongoing effect on play.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> IME, people generally do know what they want. They may not want to admit it, perhaps they haven't experienced it, but revealed preferences are a heck of a thing.
> 
> More often than not, we need to be very, very, very careful when we make this statement. Because it tends to be spoken with either an implied or explicit additional statement, "People don't know what they actually want (because if they did, they would want the same thing I do ... silly people!)."
> 
> It's rarely a good thing to say that other people are the ones that don't know what they want- most people, at a minimum, are pretty confident that they know themselves better than someone telling them that they don't really know themselves.




Couple things:

1) I think (a) people think they know what they want but they haven’t worked through it yet and (b) in the process of doing so, they discover that their feelings or even their perceptions about the nature of a thing either aren’t fully formed or perhaps are slightly askew.

This happens in relationships, in pastimes, in passions, in work, in stewardship...

In basically everything.

2) When I say “people”, I simply mean “people” (of which I am one, so myself included). The inference of “people” meaning “I’m calling out other people but not myself (therefore this conversation is just another tribal squabble) isn’t in play here. This is not a tribal squabble for me.  I discover all the time that I need to reorient myself or reconsider things I had thought I had a keen grip on (in both gaming and all other facets of my life). And I make revisions. So “people” doesn’t mean “other people”...at least when I say it. Sometimes I’ll say “humans” or “humankind”. It’s the same in all cases; “these complex biological systems of which I am one.”

No one is immune to what I depicted above (and certainly not me).



> That's one way to look at it. Another way is that TTRPGs tend to not be filled with a completely homogeneous group of players/GMs, and as such, games that offer multiple experiences that are pleasing to the entire group usually are preferred to games that intensely cater to a single preference.
> 
> Put another way, a place might make the best hamburger in the world. But if you're not in the mood for burgers, or if you're in a group with some vegans, maybe you choose a different restaurant that satisfies everyone in the group.
> 
> If everyone always wants burgers, that's great! But not all tables have that luxury.




Sure. Of course there are tables where folks have a collage of priorities and none are so deeply invested in any one of those priorities that play can just churn on despite a wobble here and there.

But I’m not talking about those tables. I’m talking about the tables where that isn’t true (where you have intense priorities and intense discord because of mismatch of participants or mismatch of expectations and the actual output of play).

I’ve been in it, I’ve seen it firsthand, I’ve witnessed it secondhand, the anecdotal evidence for it on this forum with people needing “gaming group therapy”/troubleshooting from strangers is legion. And it’s not all, or even anything bearing majority, of “soandso brought their girl/boyfriend to the game and now x is happening because of social stuff.”

I mean, you’ve been gaming for a long time too. You had to have seen this play out firsthand in your TTRPGing, right? You’ve never seen this happen? You’ve never had a personal epiphany of “I’m not having fun playing this game/system and I can’t suss out why... <fast forward 6 months of play and consideration> EUREKA!”


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> My dream of subsisting only on cookie dough? Alas, discarded.




Never give up on your dreams!


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

prabe said:


> I do. There are NPCs in my campaigns with secrets, and they're in the statblocks. Maybe don't presume that everyone plays the same way you do.




Yeah, I get that. Obviously, it depends on the nature of the statblock and all that. I personally am not going quite as far with this as @Hussar in the sense that I don't know if players creating opponent stats is ideal. It may be sometimes, it may be quite the opposite at others ("hey, under race it says 'doppleganger'....is that a typo?").

But stat blocks are kind of a dime a dozen. When I'm talking about creating a NPC, I mean who they are in the world and what they want, and their mannerisms and connections to other NPCs or groups. All the flavor info. Sure, a given detail might be relevant to stats....a warlord being famed for his enchanted weapon certainly hints at some stat related data, but that's still all secondary.



prabe said:


> Some of the ways that people are suggesting don't seem *to me* as though they'd make DMing easier *for me.* Probably others share this feeling, and I suspect that some of the frustration and irritation is (what seems to be) the blithe presumption that we haven't thought of these things or tried these things or given these things any consideration at all, and decided against them (or found they didn't work, in practice, for us).




I get that. I think that as the discussion has gone on, there's a little confusion as different folks make slightly different points, but appear to otherwise be generally on the same page. Hussars player crafted NPCs including statblocks versus my player crafted NPCs without statblocks, for example. It's easy for others to mistake us as having the same point, even if there is a distinction.

I don't think that you've been insisting that GMing must always be hard, or that there's no way to make things easier, so I don't know that pemerton's comment was directed at you. 

I've felt similar frustration at points....and I think most of us face this in these long and winding discussions, and overall it's okay....where it seems that people are insisting that it must always be hard, and then you point out that some of the things they're doing are choices, and they then deflect with something else, and so on. 

This, for me, is why I didn't even really want to engage about if DMing is harder than playing. Most people seemed to have made up their mind about that, and we're not going to change anyone's opinion. 

But I think we can all agree that most hard jobs can be made to be easier. So that's what I'd rather discuss. Different methods are going to work or not work for different people. But I expect that we'll all likely agree that the job can be made easier in most cases.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I mean, sure? But they know what they want, at that time.
> 
> Look, people change. The type of music I listened to decades ago is not, largely, the same music I listen to today. The type of food I loved in 7th grade is not what I eat now.
> 
> ...




I feel like a large part of the conversation has been about the nature of the GM's job, and the factors that may make it difficult. 

And part of that conversation has also been about the perceived difficulty versus the actual difficulty. This is of course subjective, and will vary from person to person.

But I think that examining what people think they want, or think play must be, versus what they may actually want or what play can be, is worth consideration. A lot of times, people can be unaware that there are alternatives to what they already know or accept.

I think a pretty strong case can be made for this regarding the popularity of D&D and its methods and approach to RPGs and the general lack of awareness to alternate methods, even in a kind of "insider" forum like we see here. As you say, many folks who play RPGs don't post here on ENWorld or similar sites....so those here tend to be at least some degree beyond what we'd typically consider a "casual gamer", and even among this crowd there can be a distinct lack of awareness and/or lack of interest in playing in any alternate way than how D&D functions.

And that's fine. For the vast majority of folks who play, there's no need to go any further with it....they play D&D or whatever RPG and enjoy it as is, and don't give it much thought beyond that. That's perfectly fine. That doesn't mean that there won't be people who benefit from examining RPGs and what makes them work or what makes them enjoyable. And part of that means looking at what we know, and what we don't know, and also what we think we know.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know all the reasons behind my preferences when it comes to gaming, or anything else for that matter. Sometimes, there will be an obvious reason. Other times, I may have nothing more than a gut reaction. 

There's nothing wrong with examining those instances and seeing if anything can be learned from them. 

Also, saying "Sometimes people don't know what they want" is not the same as telling someone they don't know what they want. You seem to be assuming that @Manbearcat is directing his observation at someone specific, but I don't think he is.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

@lowkey13

Alright let’s try this.

The Edition War against 4e was a thing, yes?

Ok.

Some edition warriors got together to ritualistically burn the books, some complained vociferously at nerd gatherings (gameshops, social media, cons, lines for video games), some spent an enormous amount of time on internet message boards relentlessly voicing their displeasure, yes?

Ok

Some of these folks (the overwhelming majority that post on here) said they sincerely played the game for 6 months to a year in a general state of discontent as they worked through their issues with the game (which helped them give voice to them), yes?

This cross-section of gamers who fit this profile...does their 6-12 month foray in 4e and the subsequent EXTREME fallout of their dismay not comport to my depiction?

I mean...how in the world do you play a game (any game...you could also sub <date a person> or <work st a job>) for 6 months to a year...after reading it...in a state of growing discontent...that ends in a scorched earth campaign...

If you don’t have some kind of the following paradigm at work; <not sure about stuff but need to consider it/reorient myself while in a state of unhappiness to arive at NUKE THE WHOLE MOTHER EFFING SITE FROM ORBIT conclusion 6 months to a year later>?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

Yeah, @hawkeyefan 

It feels like we’re trying to find offense here.

You know who can take offense here.

Every one of us. All of humankind. We all suffer from this.

I grew up playing baseball. Played through college. I discovered later in life through a thorough investigation that I don’t like the game. It was a marriage of convenience and circumstance. I should have dedicated my athletic life to hockey (or MMA if I would have been born 10 years later).

My life is filled with these instances, big (like the one above or finally understanding why I like certain musical organization/arrangements), and small (like figuring out that I was pronouncing a word wrong in my head for a decade because I was using the wrong model for the sound and had never heard it out loud).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

Man, I don’t understand at all.

This is just a description of how disagreement works.

This is literally the learning/corrective process of social animals.

“Hey, I don’t agree with you. Here is my case <states case that has the implicit assumption that the other person’s working model is at an information deficit or is misparamaterized>.”

This person might be wrong though. And the other person may say something that helps them change their mind.

Is ego a barrier? Of course. Buuuuut that is the nature of disagreement. Someone’s ego takes a hit...and maybe, they don’t take themself as seriously after that and their ego becomes less of a barrier next time!

We’re fallible (incorrect working models for things) and we have egos (we’re not happy, at least initially, to be challenged on that). But hopefully, we can continue to challenge each other (so we can increase our collective understanding and enrich our personal experience).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> OTOH, as we see in this thread, sometime people say exactly what the issue is and they are ignored; _cf. _the repeated confusion when some people say that players don't want to adopt certain techniques, and the reply is that DMs just aren't adopting a player driven game.
> 
> Unawareness seems to be a two-way street.




Sure, of course it is. Conversation is imperfect, especially given the format here. We're all commenting on each others' games using minimal informtion that has been shared. But we can still work through it.

When people have cited that GMing is hard, that's fine....the point is what makes it hard? What can be done, if anything, to change that? Idea A may work for you, but not for me. 

That's the worthwhile discussion, to me. 



lowkey13 said:


> While that's possible, it is also true that there are many people who have tried many different systems and have found them lacking. In a sense, what you have stated is a chick/egg issue; is D&D only popular BECAUSE it is popular, or is there something about D&D that causes it to be popular?
> 
> .... why not both?
> 
> And if so, perhaps there is something to be learned from that popularity, instead of saying that anyone who enjoys D&D is living the unexamined life?




I didn't say that they were doing so. I said they may have no awareness of OR no desire for anything beyond D&D. And that's fine. 

There have been some folks who GM and have commented in the thread that they'd like to try other systems, but that's a challenge because their players resist. This is very interesting to me, and trying to find out the reason for the disparity there is worth asking questions. Why does the GM want to try something else? Why don't the players? Is it a matter of role, or just personal preference, or some combo, or some other factor?

Not everything is an attack. I love D&D. I really do. I don't have any problem with D&D players. My comments are simply observations, I don't tend to place value judgments along with them. Some people are simply unaware that there are other gaming methods. I certainly fit that category for a significant portion of my gaming life. It didn't make me a bad gamer or a bad person.




lowkey13 said:


> Again, there is nothing wrong with you examining your preferences. That's healthy!
> 
> But if you're trying to convince other people, try not to say that they don't know what they want ... try telling them that you'd like them to try something awesome that you enjoy.
> 
> ...




No one has said "Hey, Bill.....you don't know what you want." 

It's been more like:

"GMing is hard"
"How so?"
"Well you have to create maps and NPCs and treasure lists, and track initiative and other in game elements, and the players don't really take any of the burden."
"Have you tried to play theater of the mind? Have you tried to let a player track initiative? Have you tried to let your players have more authorial power?"

People often come to understand the reasons behind their preferences by talking them out. Sure, in the very limited example I just gave, maybe nothing offered as a solution will work for that specific person. That's fine. Maybe someone else will offer something that may help! Or maybe the person will come to their own solutions prompted by the suggestions of others!



lowkey13 said:


> Any. Time. You. Tell. People. What. They. Want. And. You. Are. Not. Them. It. Will. End. Badly.
> 
> I don't know how much more clear I can be.




There's no need for you to be clearer. I understood you even without the additional punctuation. 

I'm saying that you've mistaken someone observing that sometimes people don't know what they want as someone telling specific people they don't know what they want.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> When people have cited that GMing is hard, that's fine....the point is what makes it hard? What can be done, if anything, to change that? Idea A may work for you, but not for me.
> 
> That's the worthwhile discussion, to me.




Has anyone actually stated this, because I thought this was brought up in the context of GM'ing being harder than playing...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Has anyone actually stated this, because I thought this was brought up in the context of GM'ing being harder than playing...




I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful." 

At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier. 

I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful."
> 
> At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier.
> 
> I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.




I ask because unless you can make GM'ing as easy or easier than playing I'm not sure you would entice people who play but are choosing not to GM to actually GM.  It also makes me wonder as to the practical application of some of these suggestions for a new GM who has to change the entire playstyle of their group in order to run...


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, the whole conversation went this way because people took the title of the thread, and then answered it with "Yes, the DM is more important because fewer people want to DM because it's harder than playing, so DMs are rare and players are plentiful."
> 
> At that point, I very much have directed my comments about the fact that the job can be made to be easier. I know there are multiple posters, and it's easy to lose track of all the different strands of conversation, but yes, a good chunk has been devoted to the difficulty of GMing, how the perceived difficulty can be a barrier to people trying to GM, and what may be done to try and make the job easier.
> 
> I mean, the discussion about GMing being harder than playing....well that wasn't even the point of the OP, so I haven't really been commenting on it because I don't think it really matters. My only comments on that have been "there's more for a GM to do, and their role is central and vital to the game, but all participants matter" and similar sentiments. Everything else has been about what can be done to make the job of DM or GM easier.




It can be made different, by making the game play differently.  I'm not sure that that different way is easier.  I find it much more exhausting and difficult to contemplate doing long-term compared to spending prep time.

The game is also different.  It's like saying making Nanaimo bars is too hard so let's make chocolate cookies instead.  They might be easier to bake and still tasty, but they aren't Nanaimo bars.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Does it kill your enjoyment if you are the DM?



Not at all, as when I'm DM I'm filling a different role at the table: that of referee, setting and background describer, and NPC wrangler.

And when role-playing the NPCs I have to keep in mind what they'd know as opposed to what I know, I see this as an annoying but unavoidable hazard of the DM trade.  But as a player I shouldn't ever have to worry about this.



> And, is the price worth the DM no longer having to spend 99% of the effort to keep the campaign going?  IOW, is your separation of character and player knowledge so valuable that it's more important than the DM's time?



While 99% is simply hyperbole on your part, both as DM and player I see managing the campaign* to be almost exclusively the DM's role, and this is inevitably going to lead to more expended effort than that of any player.

The players' role is to reliably show up to the games, consistently contribute while at the table, and add to the entertainment of all.  If they bring beer - bonus!  Even better if the players' contributions at the table allow the DM to largely get out of the way (other than any required refereeing) and let the session run itself; this is why I don't mind if they get into in-character arguments or hijinks or whatever, as it means they're running the show and all I need do is watch.

* - this includes setting details, adventure details, keeping records, scheduling the games, (usually) hosting, etc.



> And, "trying to gain an advantage" is most certainly NOT part of a player's duty.  At least, not at my table.



No-one's ever found and exploited a rules loophole in your game(s)?  Or devised and used a truly broken combination?  Or advocated for the easing of a restriction or the addition of something PC-beneficial?

No wonder your DM workload is so light.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> If it's half-remembered, how are the players going to know that what the GM says now differs from the other (forgotten) half?



You'd be surprised.

Also, nailing things down a bit firmer avoids arguments later when - as is otherwise inevitable - memories conflict.  Had one too many of those over the years. 



> I seriously think this concern is being exaggerated. Yes, notes are generally necessary to support continuity. But they don't have to be extensive.



At the table at the time, I agree.  Oftentimes my notes for a session - other than some fill-in-the-blank stuff noting what they fought or did and who was involved, the game date and session number, and notes on treasure found - might be just one or two lines; sometimes even just one or two words!

Reason for this is I find note-taking in the moment tends to throw my concentration off.

But, either immediately after the session or first thing the next day I'll take those scratch notes and my memory and put together the online game log for that session...which is often many lines! 



> Those are done from memory, not notes, and their main purpose is to provide material for reflection on/discussion of actual play. That's why they're not just records of the fiction, which would normally be quite a bit briefer.



Ah.  And here I thought all this time you'd been cutting and pasting from your game logs.


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I mean, I can tell people how I never spend more than 10+ minutes in prep time, and how I've incorporated various systems into my 5e, but I doubt it will be helpful to people who aren't me and don't play like I do.




I'd be curious, if only because I wonder what it is you're doing wrong I often find others' methods interesting, even if I'm unlikely to adopt them myself.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I think I'm missing something here. Misremembering the score is a metaphor - what is it a metaphor for?
> 
> If everyone at the table accepts that Bernard, who was introduced as a gnome, is actually a halfling, what's the problem? If someone remembers part way through the scenario that something got mixed up that's a different story obviously, but how big a risk is that?



The problem arises when the DM and one player remember Bernard was a Gnome, two other players insist he was a Hobbit, and the remaining player has his name mixed up with that of the Part-Orc bouncer who threw the party out of the pub and doesn't remember dealing with either a Gnome or a Hobbit.

Which matters if Bernard has somehow become relevant again, as one's general approach to dealing with a Gnome might be considerably different to one's general approach (bring food!) to dealing with a Hobbit.



> How often does it happen?



Back before we started keeping detailed game logs, just about every frikkin' session.



> The PCs have bribed NPCs, tricked them and in some cases swindled them. But from my point of view most of those NPCs are done - I've got no interest in re-introducing them into the game, and the players don't seem to either.



Of course the players don't!  They've already gotten away with their tricks and swindles, why ever would they want to see those people again?

If those people come up again it'll be because you brought them back into play - maybe looking for the swindlers...


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> So I've been told. Sometimes repeatedly. Often by people that want a Barboard? *Starlord*? Farnord? Carsword?



You can only have a Starlord if I get a Groot!

Someone else can have the raccoon.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I ask because unless you can make GM'ing as easy or easier than playing I'm not sure you would entice people who play but are choosing not to GM to actually GM.  It also makes me wonder as to the practical application of some of these suggestions for a new GM who has to change the entire playstyle of their group in order to run...




I do think that there is a barrier to people becoming GMs that is the perceived difficulty of the role. Is that the entirety of what keeps people from GMing? No,of course not.

But after so many people expressing the sentiment that what makes GMs important is their scarcity, which can be attributed to the difficulty of the role, why would the attempt to discuss how that role can be made easier be met with such resistance?

I don't find GMing to be significantly more difficult than playing. There is more involved, yes, and the coordination of the content largely falls to the GM.

There are ways that can make that easier. Yes, I realize the focus for the last several pages has been about player authored NPCs and the like. However, that's one possible option. Players tracking initiative, players tracking HP, players creating notes on NPCs....these are more basic and practical ways.

Unless someone thinks that they're a perfect GM, then there are ways to improve. What will work for one person may not for another, and that's fine.....fair enough. Maybe someone else reading along will find it helpful.

And yes, some things will work more for newer GMs and others more for experienced GMs. I agree with that. However, even hearing some of the "advanced ideas" may benefit a newer GM even if they're not quite ready to adopt those ideas themselves. 



Nagol said:


> It can be made different, by making the game play differently.  I'm not sure that that different way is easier.  I find it much more exhausting and difficult to contemplate doing long-term compared to spending prep time.
> 
> The game is also different.  It's like saying making Nanaimo bars is too hard so let's make chocolate cookies instead.  They might be easier to bake and still tasty, but they aren't Nanaimo bars.




There are things that I have adopted for my game that have made it easier for me to GM. Different things for different games, but a fair amount is pretty universal. Others may find it less so. Some of these things I came to on my own, others were mentioned to me by others, either here on these forums, or in other online sources, or in actual RPG books.

Some options may change a game too much for a particular person's taste....sure. Yet someone else may find the game better for the suggestion. Other options may not change the game too much.

Again, if a task is difficult, there can be things done to make it easier.


----------



## prabe (Feb 27, 2020)

@lowkey13 Thanks! I think I can roll with some of those. I'm working on establishing my campaign setting (B), and I use a lot of Passive scores and roleplay for out of combat stuff (D). I wouldn't have thought about "gritty realism" speeding up play/prep, but I can see it (and may consider it). Published adventures make no sense in my head (which is me) and I think battlemats make things clearer enough that I'm reluctant to do without. Obviously (I hope it's obvious, anyway) I'm not arguing with how you do things at your table.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't have a problem with players making up NPCs or places (for example, as part of their background). I'm glad when they do it, since it's something to hook on to that they're invested in.
> 
> That said, I don't really see the benefit to what you're describing. I could go on the internet and get an adventure or NPC with less effort than assigning "homework" to the players. With the added benefit that there's a very high chance that it will be something the players haven't read and will therefore be able to explore without having to suspend their disbelief. Either way, I still have to analyze the material, and make any desired adjustments. I just don't see how this would save me work. I don't even usually run modules since in the time it takes me to prepare one module, I can come up with multiple adventures for personal use.




Well, there's the clear benefit of player engagement.  They are creating material for THEIR characters.  Hopefully they will be interested and be able to create material that is tailored to the group.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't find GMing to be significantly more difficult than playing. There is more involved, yes, and the coordination of the content largely falls to the GM.




Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?

EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing.  Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I do think that there is a barrier to people becoming GMs that is the perceived difficulty of the role. Is that the entirety of what keeps people from GMing? No,of course not.
> 
> But after so many people expressing the sentiment that what makes GMs important is their scarcity, which can be attributed to the difficulty of the role, why would the attempt to discuss how that role can be made easier be met with such resistance?




There were hints of BADWRONGFUN in the advice/admonishments, for one.



> I don't find GMing to be significantly more difficult than playing. There is more involved, yes, and the coordination of the content largely falls to the GM.



More involved and extra coordination == harder.  It is only not-hard for the segment of population that find coordination and the extra involvement above and beyond playing no big deal.  For some people playing is hard.  For some that play, extra work is hard.



> There are ways that can make that easier. Yes, I realize the focus for the last several pages has been about player authored NPCs and the like. However, that's one possible option. Players tracking initiative, players tracking HP, players creating notes on NPCs....these are more basic and practical ways.
> 
> Unless someone thinks that they're a perfect GM, then there are ways to improve. What will work for one person may not for another, and that's fine.....fair enough. Maybe someone else reading along will find it helpful.




29 pages into an argument thread? Not likely.  There have been threads specific to easier DM/GM techniques.  I was always a fan of the Lazy DM thread, but there have been a lot over the years.



> There are things that I have adopted for my game that have made it easier for me to GM. Different things for different games, but a fair amount is pretty universal. Others may find it less so. Some of these things I came to on my own, others were mentioned to me by others, either here on these forums, or in other online sources, or in actual RPG books.



And different things for different player groups.  The better you know your group, the more consistent prep becomes.



> Some options may change a game too much for a particular person's taste....sure. Yet someone else may find the game better for the suggestion. Other options may not change the game too much.
> 
> Again, if a task is difficult, there can be things done to make it easier.




To a point.  There are always diminishing returns and hard limits.  If you can make tasks for a role disappear then the role never really existed as more than arbitrage.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I would say that there are two separate things going on:
> 
> 1. DMs are important because of their scarcity. This is observational. For example, you see articles about being paid to DM. You hear about groups that are looking for DMs. You even (unfortunately) hear about power imbalances created because DMs are more scarce ... as in, "The DM decides, and that has to go, because there's one DM and a lot of players... who ya gonna replace?"
> 
> ...




There are certain games over the decades I would have dearly loved to play a long term game of.  Unfortunately, no one else was willing to run and capable of keeping a long-term game going.  Sigh.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> A. I think Italian food is the best cuisine. Because of X, Y, and Z.
> B. Well, you don't even know what you like.



I’ve never seen that discussion, but I’ve seen this one an absolute ton.

A. I think Italian food is the best
B. What other food have you tried?
A. Er, I like Italian.
B. There’s lots of others. What have you tried?
A. Your food doesn’t sound as good as Italian. I wouldn’t even call anything else food.
B. Congratulations. Bye.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 27, 2020)

chaochou said:


> I’ve never seen that discussion, but I’ve seen this one an absolute ton.




You're definitely not looking hard enough then...


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Arghh. No, you don't understand. Because that's not how disagreement works!
> 
> Watch the difference:
> 
> ...




I’m going to be done after clarifying this because this is clearly not a fun conversation for either of us (this is definitely not why I engage in TTRPG discussion).

Your arrangement above is not accurate.

It’s not about taste or preference or what people like. When people like things and they’re working, there is no need for further examination. But (a) when people are having a hard time with x and (b) they think they like x yet (c) can’t puzzle out why they’re having a hard time with x...the conversation is like this (going back to the originating x and y).

Conversation:

Person 1: I like Action Adventure TTRPGing...but something feels off here...

Person 2: Are you sure you broadly like Action Adventure TTRPGing? Maybe you like this other thing? Or maybe you like AA gaming when thing 1 and thing 2 aren’t present?

Because I definitely I like AA TTRPGing and what I like is definitely different from what you like. I like AA TTRPGing because of this thing and that thing. Do you like this thing and that thing?

Person 1: <Responds to the above questions or asks for clarification>.

My life is filled with endless interactions like this and I’m not remotely a social pariah. My engagements with people go swimmingly...there isn’t the kind of offense taken that you’re predicting...and we figure stuff out. And, crazy enough, pretty much everyone in all of my circles (friends, family, work, etc) know I have our collective best interests in mind and they come to me for council.

I am done talking about how to congenially talk about TTRPGing. If I have something to say about the topic at hand I’ll post more, but I’m not doing this line of conversation anymore. If I don’t respond to any reply, I’m not being a jerk. I just don’t want to continue this.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Again, though, there is a difference between the banal observation that people change, people grow, people learn, and so on, and the somewhat more insidious and pejorative statement that people don't understand their own preferences.



Let's take this as given.  It's still been you that's introduced the more insidious version of this despite the other poster refuting your characterization and explaining their approach.  You still hold out that the insidious approach exists and we need to be vigilant, which is just a banal observation as you're talking about here, and also has an insidious side if it's being used to characterize other posters to dismiss their arguments.  See how that works?

I get that you see this one way, and that's the negative way.  This is clear from your example of how you crafted the discussion argument to cast 'might not know what you want' in the frame of an attack.  It wasn't presented that way, and is actually something that I have personal, recent experience with having happened to me in regards to RPGs -- I didn't fully understand what I want from a game and didn't know why I was burning out so quickly when running (and playing, often).  I changed how I looked at things, accepted something new, and learned something about myself and that my preferences are supportable by changing some approaches to play.  So, @Manbearcat's statement absolutely applies to me, 100%, and not in an insidious or pejorative way but in a constructive, "yep, that's my story, there," way.  I agree with you that 'people aren't always aware of what they want' can be a sideways attack, but it wasn't here, it was used in good faith to point out that there's a strong mono-culture in gaming and some people might not even be aware that they'd like partaking in a different gaming culture because they aren't aware of it's existence.  I've been part of a number of discussions on this very board where an approach to play presented clearly in the DMG is met with surprise that such play even exists in 5e opposite to the expectations of those posters.  I could call on @iserith and @Charlaquin to support those claims.  This isn't a statement that all gamers, or even most gamers, would choose to change if exposed, it's a statement that at least some might.  And, being exposed and solidifying your understanding of your own preferences is a solid good in all respects.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> There were hints of BADWRONGFUN in the advice/admonishments, for one.




I didn't think so, but I largely don't really register that stuff all too much. If someone thinks that my way is bad, that's their prerogative. 

Any advice I offered, or questions I asked, were in genuine hope to be able to move the conversation forward either by understanding someone else's POV or playstule better, or to offer an idea of my own that maybe some would find useful. At least until these last couple of pages, at least. Now I'm talking about how we should talk. 



Nagol said:


> More involved and extra coordination == harder.  It is only not-hard for the segment of population that find coordination and the extra involvement above and beyond playing no big deal.  For some people playing is hard.  For some that play, extra work is hard.




Yes, many people have said this. That's fine. My opinion is that DMing is not significantly harder than playing. Are you admonishing me? Are you telling me my opinion is wrong? 

I don't think you are.....this is simply the nature of discussion.



Nagol said:


> And different things for different player groups.  The better you know your group, the more consistent prep becomes.
> 
> To a point.  There are always diminishing returns and hard limits.  If you can make tasks for a role disappear then the role never really existed as more than arbitrage.




Yes, I agree withthese points. As I've said repeatedly, different things will work for different people.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?
> 
> EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing.  Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.



I don't think GMing has to be harder than playing, depending on the game.  I think 5e requires more effort from a GM because of the GM centered nature of the game (it would require serious hacking to change this), but 4e doesn't require more.  I think GMing is different from playing, in every game.  The responsibilities differ.  It can be hard to say which is harder if you cannot directly compare them.  I think, though, in that it's clearly true that if you, as GM, take on the role as sole authority over the fiction and resolution thereof, and hold out as a goal a well-crafted fiction, that your job will be much harder than a player who's only task is to experience that fiction through their character.  I think that's a choice, though, so it being harder is a choice to make it so.  NOT a bad choice -- I do more work than my players when I run 5e, even as I've taken steps to lighten the work I put in by sharing some of the fictional authorities.  So, clearly, I'm not of the opinion that choosing to do more work is a bad outcome.  I'm genuinely happy that people have fun playing differently from me because that means I have more to learn and experience and sample, aside from the more meta-level abstract happiness that people are having fun at a shared hobby.  I think a lot of these conversations get sidetracked because someone takes a statement the wrong way and it's into a nasty back and forth before either side recognizes the mistake -- and, let's be honest, we as humans aren't very good at backing down.  I'm clearly guilty of this, myself, in this thread, so I'm not assuming any moral high ground, here.

Games are a choice.  There's lots of ways to approach an RPG as far as role responsibilities.  Which one you choose should be to maximize your fun.  Clearly, this has to be balanced against the social contract of your that group, so you can't always maximize your own fun, but there's a place where you can maximize your fun within that construct and not break it for others.  If that's doing a lot of prep, awesome, more power to you.  It is, however, a choice you and your table have made, not a requirement.  That's the extent of my point -- that and to try to raise awareness that it is a choice among others, and if you haven't considered (or tried) the others, you might find that you can learn a new tool to help maximize your fun at the table.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn't think so, but I largely don't really register that stuff all too much. If someone thinks that my way is bad, that's their prerogative.
> 
> Any advice I offered, or questions I asked, were in genuine hope to be able to move the conversation forward either by understanding someone else's POV or playstule better, or to offer an idea of my own that maybe some would find useful. At least until these last couple of pages, at least. Now I'm talking about how we should talk.
> 
> ...




Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans.  Then you are wrong.  If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.  

I don't think multithreaded programming is hard.  Most programmers disagree and rightfully so.  I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion.  Most people don't find attending a party difficult.  For me it is excruciating.  I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.

Many people think differential calculus is hard.  I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it.  It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard.  Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.



> I don't think you are.....this is simply the nature of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree withthese points. As I've said repeatedly, different things will work for different people.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans.  Then you are wrong.  If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.
> 
> I don't think multithreaded programming is hard.  Most programmers disagree and rightfully so.  I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion.  Most people don't find attending a party difficult.  For me it is excruciating.  I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.
> 
> Many people think differential calculus is hard.  I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it.  It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard.  Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.




I find the traditional D&D approach to GMing to be hard, zero questions.  I don't think that makes GMing hard, though, it just makes that approach hard.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 27, 2020)

I haven’t been following this thread, but I would say the DM is certainly not the most important _person_ at the table. Every person is valuable, no one player’s experience should be given more importance than anyone else’s. However, the DM does have the most important _role_ at the table. It is the only role that is essential to the function of the game - if you lose a player, as long as there is still at least one player remaining, the game can go on without having to find someone else to fill that role. If you lose the DM, you need someone to fill that role or the game can’t go on (there are GM-less systems of course, but D&D is not one of them).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> @Sadras says:
> Many of the posters who ONLY advocate for the so-called _player-driven games _(@Manbearcat and @Ovinomancer have their feet planted firmly in both camps so not them)* do not seem to understand this desire by players.*
> 
> I feel they're always entering threads with their singular axiom 'GM Force = negative = bad DM' *but are not willing to accept that many players out there are actually reluctant/resistant to*
> ...




That's not quite what's happening though.

The question, in my mind anyway, is how can we reduce the workload on DM's in order to entice more people to DM.  One possible solution is to involve players more and dump some of the workload off on them.  The reaction is generally that doing so will impinge on DM authority and we cannot possibly do that.   

Are there players who are reluctant/resistant?  I'm sure there are.  But, we'll generally never know how much reluctance/resistance there is, because any suggestion that we change the current paradigm is immediately dismissed out of hand.

I'm not offering a panacea solution here. I'm offering ONE solution.  No one else seems to be willing to do even that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

/note - still swimming upthread and responding as I go.



Nagol said:


> Agreed!  I made similar points way back in an early response to GameOgre's request.  The way to have a low-prep 5e game is to change the nature of the game and move it from player discovery to table discovery (play to see what happens).
> 
> Personally, I don't use D&D when I want to play that style of game.




That's not true though.  Is it really "changing the nature of the game" to go from exploring 100% of the game to exploring 80%?  After all, you're not supposed to know what the other players are creating.  There's no reason they would tell you and no reason for you to tell them and every reason not to.  The notion that we're radically altering the nature of the game just because one player knows a bit more than the other at the table (and nothing that that player "knows" is actually fact since the DM can and should change details before play) is a bit of an over reaction I think.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?




Well it varies by game, for sure, but generally speaking players should declare actions for their characters and the GM should help adjudicate those actions, and the response to this actions as well, including the actions of NPCs.

That's pretty basic, I know, but it's hard to go much further without talking about a specific game.

However, I'll add that even in a more traditional approach such as that of D&D, I expect a lot of input from the players on the game world. Not as much as the DM will have, but more than what the game expects as presented.

Generally, I take details of the fiction that I think are relevant or interesting and I craft a situation or scenario for the PCs to deal with. They then decide how to do so, declare their actions, and I adjudicate. 



Imaro said:


> EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing.  Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.




The hang up on which is more difficult is just something I don't think I can comment on any further.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Do some experienced RGPers hold the opinion that they know better than some newb what that newb wants? Of course they do. If we all don't know or have played with at least one of those people I'd be very surprised. You say "I really enjoyed Dragon Heist, I thought it was was awesome!" and they reply, "well, Blades in the Dark is the game you want there, not D&D". Knowing a lot of stuff about gaming will always produce that guy who uses his mass of knowledge to gatekeep in various ways, or index his place in the FLGS pecking order with the occasional bravura showing of obscured TTRPG lore. That's very much a thing, and it's also very much a thing online, and also a thing on this very forum. I have been that guy before, I know I have, sometimes on purpose and sometimes not, but I've been there. I don't see who benefits from pretending this kind of behavior doesn't happen. It's mostly not a good thing.

Suggesting things is great, telling people they only enjoy X because they haven't tried Y isn't.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I ask because unless you can make GM'ing as easy or easier than playing I'm not sure you would entice people who play but are choosing not to GM to actually GM.  It also makes me wonder as to the practical application of some of these suggestions for a new GM who has to change the entire playstyle of their group in order to run...




Again, I'm not sure we can draw a line at any particular point without any data?  Does DMing need to be "as easy or easier" than playing before someone will step up?  Or, does it just need to be a bit easier than it is right now?  I dunno.  I have no idea.  My point of throwing out options is that if we gave these options to people playing D&D who may or may not have even considered that there are alternatives to the DM doing 99% of the work, then perhaps it might help.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 27, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Only if you believe your opinion is universal to humans.  Then you are wrong.  If you opinion reflects your own temperament and aptitudes then you are not wrong.
> 
> I don't think multithreaded programming is hard.  Most programmers disagree and rightfully so.  I would characterise it as hard -- not because I think it is but because that is the prevalent opinion.  Most people don't find attending a party difficult.  For me it is excruciating.  I wouldn't say attending parties is hard; I'd say attending parties is hard for me.
> 
> Many people think differential calculus is hard.  I don't, but I acknowledge it is hard for many possibly even most people exposed to it.  It wasn't hard to the others in my later calculus classes either because those people were self-selected to not find it hard.  Those who have experience GMing are self-selected to not find it hard and are thus untrustworthy witnesses as to whether it is hard in a more inclusive sense.




Yup, different people have different opinions on what's hard. We've gotten to the point in the conversation where we're explaining to each other what opinions are.

This is why I don't feel the desire to debate what's harder DMing or playing, and instead want to focus on methods to make DMing  easier.

Do you have any ideas on that?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Not at all, as when I'm DM I'm filling a different role at the table: that of referee, setting and background describer, and NPC wrangler.
> 
> And when role-playing the NPCs I have to keep in mind what they'd know as opposed to what I know, I see this as an annoying but unavoidable hazard of the DM trade.  But as a player I shouldn't ever have to worry about this.
> 
> ...




If the players' role is to show up and play and nothing else, how is my 99% of the workload on the DM hyperbole?  If the DM is in charge of tracking all the information both before and after play, designing every single thing that the players will play through, and everything else, how is that not 99%?   What per cent would you call it?

And, well, you have to remember, my entire group, for a long time, consists of multiple DM's.  Exploiting rules loopholes and whatnot is the sign of bad play and, well, since we've all been DM's, no one wants to do it to another DM.  One of the benefits of playing with folks with DMing experience.  Any and all problems can be traced almost exclusively to the pure players who refuse to invest the time to run a game.  

If your group is nothing but pure players, I can see why your DM workload is so heavy and why trust is so hard to come by.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Could you tell me what you believe to be the responsibilities of the GM vs the responsibilities of the player both in play and outside of play?
> 
> EDIT: Which is to say if the role has more involved andis largely responsible for the coordination of the content, I find it hard to argue being a GM isn't more difficult than playing.  Now to what degree I'm probably not going to argue because that is much more subjective.




Note, you didn't ask this to me, but, if I may...

That's going to vary considerably from table to table and game to game.  There are none AFAIK, that are demanded by the system.  The share of responsibilities are usually divided up in the rules as a general guideline, but, are certainly not required.

I wonder how much of this disagreement has to do with personal experience.  For me, my formative years of gaming, back in the 80's, was that everyone DM'd.  The notion that groups have one DM is pretty much completely alien to me.  Even back in the first days, we would take turns DMing, with the DM's character fading into the background as an NPC for the duration of that adventure.  Then, as that adventure was winding up to a conclusion, someone else would step up and offer to run the next adventure.

So, even way back then, our DMing duties were never terribly difficult.  You had to come up with an adventure every few months and that was about it.  It worked for us.

Even today, in my current group, we run two campaigns concurrently on alternating weeks.  Different characters this time around, but, it gives the DM 2 weeks to prepare for every session.   And, if someone gets buried with work, one or the other DM steps up and runs their game that week.  Easy peasy.

So, division of responsibilities?  That's not something I can honestly answer.  It changes from group to group, game to game and heck, possibly even week to week.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> There are plenty of games that offer alternate paradigms.
> 
> There are plenty of games that offer alternate paradigms, and still have fantasy.
> 
> ...




I would argue the problem is that the alternatives are never given any air time in the broader hobby.  Thousands of pages of Dragon Magazine articles telling DM's they have to do 99% of the work and virtually no suggestions on how to reduce that workload or spread it around.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 27, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> /note - still swimming upthread and responding as I go.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true though.  Is it really "changing the nature of the game" to go from exploring 100% of the game to exploring 80%?  After all, you're not supposed to know what the other players are creating.  There's no reason they would tell you and no reason for you to tell them and every reason not to.  The notion that we're radically altering the nature of the game just because one player knows a bit more than the other at the table (and nothing that that player "knows" is actually fact since the DM can and should change details before play) is a bit of an over reaction I think.




I was referring to the on-the-fly creation paradigm more commonly seen in Dungeonworld, much FATE, and Burning Wheel.  I contend on-the-fly creation and adjudication changes the nature of the game when compared to previously-prepared and adjudicated play even if we discount the game-specific play alterations such as snowballing in Dungeonworld and Belief/Instinct/Trait of Burning Wheel..

If we're discussing something more like the Dirty Dungeon concept, I have other serious concerns with that outside of the nature of play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Interesting. See, here is the exact statement I found problematic:
> 
> 
> *1) People don’t know which they actually want! They think they want AA, but they really want AOCM...or vice versa.*
> ...



I'll assume the "you" in the last para is just a rhetorical device applied in haste and not the accusation it appears to be.  I wouldn't want to assume insidious behavior over hasty phrasing after all.

And, sure, there are jerks that think they know what other people think better than they do.  I don't recall them posting in this thread, though.  I'm not sure why you keep insisting we remember these jerks exist when they aren't currently present and participating in the thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I apologize; I wasn't trying to be obscure.
> 
> What I mean is that there are plenty of non-D&D alternatives to play. There are tons of games that are built to support a style of play, easily, that allows for _inter alia_ all the player narrative and control anyone can want!
> 
> ...



This goes from a good point (that people may not play a different game because they aren't aware, lack opportunity due to group, ir straight up don't prefer them) to an assumption as to the numbers of each where you assume you know what many people think and it aligns with your opinion.  This is as correct as someone else assuming it's because they don't know any better.  There's no support for either statement.

All that can be said is that the large majority of RPG players play 5e edition*.  That doesn't tell us much else as to why, or even if those D&D counts include also playing ither games.

* which has many different assumptions from, say, 0e, as 5e does from many other games, if not in the primary role of GM.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yup, different people have different opinions on what's hard. We've gotten to the point in the conversation where we're explaining to each other what opinions are.
> 
> This is why I don't feel the desire to debate what's harder DMing or playing, and instead want to focus on methods to make DMing  easier.
> 
> Do you have any ideas on that?




Dozens, possibly more.  It depends a lot on the game engine, campaign type (common environment, level of continuity between missions, expected PC power level, expected amount and power of extraordinary abilities aka magic), , and specific GM (what does the GM find difficult during a session and what costs time outside of it).

Let's start with the GM first.  Many newer GMs have confessed they get overwhelmed during a session by adjudicating consequence.  Either they are afraid of the players going the 'wrong way' or that they don't want to hurt the players' feelings (I had one Paranoia GM that refused to kill the PCs, like ever).  

Like most new things, start small and practice.  Make sure the game you are running fits what you want to run.  If you feel uncomfortable killing PCs, pick a game where that is highly unlikely or impossible as opposed to one where multiple PC death is game conceit.

Other advice would depend a lot on the campaign type: sandbox means there is no wrong path, AP if the PCs wander off script, let them founder a little, but find ways to keep offering them back onto the path.  If the players refuse to take the ramps, talk to the players about expectations.  

If the DM is uncomfortable with improv design, again practice and keep individual areas small and highly contained.  Also learn some basic paradigms like the 5-room dungeon so you have a basic framework to riff on.  Practice "yes and" answers to player declarations to keep the table moving and engaged.  Try to avoid hard blocks when the players try something entirely unexpected.  It's OK to take a 5-10 minute break to regroup and think through consequence and ramifications.  Create a few index cards or equivalent with thematic collections of antagonists and rewards.  Collect traps, tricks, and puzzles to drop in to distract.  

Above all, listen.  The players will almost certainly be discussing possibilities and they have multiple brains.  Liberally steal the best of ideas though toss in some twists to make them your own.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This goes from a good point (that people may not play a different game because they aren't aware, lack opportunity due to group, ir straight up don't prefer them) to an assumption as to the numbers of each where you assume you know what many people think and it aligns with your opinion.  This is as correct as someone else assuming it's because they don't know any better.  There's no support for either statement.
> 
> All that can be said is that the large majority of RPG players play 5e edition*.  That doesn't tell us much else as to why, or even if those D&D counts include also playing ither games.
> 
> * which has many different assumptions from, say, 0e, as 5e does from many other games, if not in the primary role of GM.




Anecdotes abound of tables refusing to pursue other games and DMs capitulating.  Heck, I can't get my tables to consider BitD despite my enthusiasm.  Luckily for my players, my current campaign is still of interest to me or they'd be facing a stark choice.

I saw similar bias towards d20 game engines in the 3.X era.  Some people want the comfort of a familiar engine even if a different engine offers better* game play.





* by some set of  arbitrary measures.


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> (I had one Paranoia GM that refused to kill the PCs, like ever).




Um.

That sounds like an entry in the point-missing hall of fame, dunnit?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> But it doesn't align with my opinion, does it? So, maybe don't tell me what to think? I mean, I just called D&D the Taylor Swift of games, and if you're familiar at all with what I write, you should understand exactly how I meant it.



No, I am not familiar with your opinion of Taylor Swift.  I did assume that what you presented was your opinion, so apologies.  What is your opinion of why most people seem to play D&D, then?



> And if you aren't familiar, maybe you're the one leaping to conclusions to support your own point of view?



This seems a tad hostile -- I did my best to follow what you've put down.  Usually, though, when one is unclear in how they present themselves, blaming the audience is a poor choice.  As you've admitted above you argued by familiarity with unstated (in this thread) opinion and that you presented an idea that wasn't your opinion without calling that out, I'm not well motivated to assume responsibility for this miscommunication.  I'll admit I can be mistaken, but I'm awaiting the correction, still.





> In a certain way, nothing means anything, does it?
> 
> In a another, also certain way, revealed preferences count for something. Not quality, but something.
> 
> ...and I think we're good now!



I think that you taking that most people play D&D is a revealed preference right after saying it could be through group conformity pressure or unawareness of other options is premature.  You haven't done the work to show that the disparity in popularity is indeed through revealed preferences rather than other options.  I think you could advance that theory, and I'm not adverse to it, but you can't claim evidence to support it -- it's more of an inference.  Having had experience running games in game stores (I once managed a hobby shop with a large RPG section in addition to running in other stores), I'd say that the monoculture effect of 'it's what I can play' and 'it's all I've played' are pretty strong influences as well -- inferentially speaking based on my experiences, of course.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> Um.
> 
> That sounds like an entry in the point-missing hall of fame, dunnit?




It was... weird, certainly.  I played about 4 different adventures with the same clone before "I got too busy" and bowed out.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Anecdotes abound of tables refusing to pursue other games and DMs capitulating.  Heck, I can't get my tables to consider BitD despite my enthusiasm.  Luckily for my players, my current campaign is still of interest to me or they'd be facing a stark choice.
> 
> I saw similar bias towards d20 game engines in the 3.X era.  Some people want the comfort of a familiar engine even if a different engine offers better* game play.
> 
> ...



Oh, comfort is a big thing.  I don't deny that.  I'm questioning if that counts as evidence that they might not enjoy other games if they overcame that barrier.  I've had good luck getting groups to play other games.  Presenting one shots or short runs so that there's not much opportunity cost seems to work well.  That might be the groups I've encountered, it might not.  I will say that, until the last few years, all of the games we tried had pretty strong traditional roles for players and GMs.  A few blurred the lines a bit, but the structure remained.  Still, I haven't had much trouble getting my current group to play Blades -- they love it.  We are, however, currently playing 5e because we like that game, too.  I'm excited to try running a Scum and Villainy game soon, which I know I'll have little trouble pitching and will have to actually be selective in players, but that's because I know a lot of Firefly fans and I'm pitching a game in that vein.  I hope to get back to 7Sea 1st ed sometime, though, as I think I can make that game really sing by moving towards a 'play to see what happens' mode rather than the GM determined games that always seems to wilt a bit.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> It was... weird, certainly.  I played about 4 different adventures with the same clone before "I got too busy" and bowed out.



Paranoia is a game that I think would work better as a PbtA hack rather than the rules as released.  The game promise was snowballing danger leading to hilarity and hijinx, but that takes a really talented GM to orchestrate according to the rules presents.  A system that actually supports the snowball mechanically seems a much better fit. I think you could do it with FATE, maybe, or Savage Worlds, but I really think an engine built around building consequences would be a great fit.

But, yeah, not killing clones is :yikes:


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, comfort is a big thing.  I don't deny that.  I'm questioning if that counts as evidence that they might not enjoy other games if they overcame that barrier.  I've had good luck getting groups to play other games.  Presenting one shots or short runs so that there's not much opportunity cost seems to work well.  That might be the groups I've encountered, it might not.  I will say that, until the last few years, all of the games we tried had pretty strong traditional roles for players and GMs.  A few blurred the lines a bit, but the structure remained.  Still, I haven't had much trouble getting my current group to play Blades -- they love it.  We are, however, currently playing 5e because we like that game, too.  I'm excited to try running a Scum and Villainy game soon, which I know I'll have little trouble pitching and will have to actually be selective in players, but that's because I know a lot of Firefly fans and I'm pitching a game in that vein.  I hope to get back to 7Sea 1st ed sometime, though, as I think I can make that game really sing by moving towards a 'play to see what happens' mode rather than the GM determined games that always seems to wilt a bit.




I run a lot of different game engines too.  One of the advantages of being the GM is I can say "I'm running X; who wants to play?"  Most players seem to be down for most game systems I'd consider.  There are a few players that won't play specific games that rub them the wrong way.  Ars Magica has a couple of players that really don't want to deal with downtime/lab work, for example.

Next time I need a recharge, I'll be running a 1-2 session of BitD. I'd _really_ prefer to play, but there are no nibbles.  The person in my circles who would've most likely been willing to run it is now a former GM :-{


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I run a lot of different game engines too.  One of the advantages of being the GM is I can say "I'm running X; who wants to play?"  Most players seem to be down for most game systems I'd consider.  There are a few players that won't play specific games that rub them the wrong way.  Ars Magica has a couple of players that really don't want to deal with downtime/lab work, for example.
> 
> Next time I need a recharge, I'll be running a 1-2 session of BitD. I'd _really_ prefer to play, but there are no nibbles.  The person in my circles who would've most likely been willing to run it is now a former GM :-{




One of the things I’ve been doing lately is finding games I want to play, and then figuring out which of my players would be a good fit for that game, and prompting them to run it when our current 5E campaign is done.

So far, I’ve got a few good matches. None for BitD, though, which is a shame because I’d really like to give playing a try rather than GMing. 

But I’ll settle for some Mothership, Esoteric Enterprises, and Spectaculars, for now.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> For some reason, it's really, really important for a cohort of people to insist that they understand other people's preference better than they do.




What the hell do you think you're adding to the conversation with this crap?

There is no "some reason."

There is no "cohort."

There is no "insist."

There is no claim to "understand other people's preferences better than they do."

This is utter_nonsense.

Cue the mods to censure me.  This is just dumb and I don't even care to engage in a conversation with the likes of this so just boot me @Umbran or whomever.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> You can only have a Starlord if I get a Groot!
> 
> Someone else can have the raccoon.



Done!  That raccoon comes with some nasty weaponry.  I'll take him.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> What? No one takes Drax?
> 
> Probably because they can’t see him. He moves so slow that you can’t perceive him.



No thank you!  They don't call him the Destroyer because he beats people up.  My bathroom still hasn't recovered from the last time he was over.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> This is why I ask players for backstories. I at least want something I can tie into the campaign, to make the story actually about the players' characters, rather than some sort of Adventure Path for whichever characters show up. Sometimes I get more than I think I want, but I think I'd rather have that than no one gives me anything.





Sadras said:


> Bold emphasis mine...I'm sure @GameOgre was not trying to _get things going_ for _an adventure._
> Your kickers get one out the gate much like a decent backstory could - we are talking about ONGOING prep.
> His 2-4 hour preparations are, I imagine, for many, if not every, sessions.
> 
> So once the out the gate happens, then what? The kickers you provided do not relieve prep once the game gets going. There will be more locales, more NPCs, deeper plots, foreshadowings, combats, setups/framing, mapping and twists....



In a game that uses a technique like "kickers", or otherwise has the players play a role in framing and set-up, generally that will continue. One would expect the players to drive the action to a considerable extent. For instance, in my Dark Sun game the PCs ended up sheltering in a safe house that one of the players posited was familiar to that player's PC. A fair bit of action revolved around that.

In this sense it is more than just the GM tying backstories into an adventure that s/he plans. That's how it reduces GM prep requirements.



prabe said:


> Some of the ways that people are suggesting don't seem *to me* as though they'd make DMing easier *for me.* Probably others share this feeling, and I suspect that some of the frustration and irritation is (what seems to be) the blithe presumption that we haven't thought of these things or tried these things or given these things any consideration at all, and decided against them (or found they didn't work, in practice, for us).



I'm confused. The post of mine that you quoted wasn't a reply to you. It was a post that was responding to the general theme of _must GMing be hard work?_, which had also crystallised into an actual request for advice about how to reduce prep for a 5e D&D game.



Sadras said:


> You quoted my post so I'd like to point out that I'm refering to the desired playstyle by players not about GMing being hard* and how certain posters are unable to grasp why such players prefer that particular playstyle.
> 
> *I fail to see how you got that GMing is hard from my post.



I interpreted your post as part of the ongoing discussion, which is about the challenges of GMing. If people want to play games driven overwhelmingly by the GM working from GM-prepared material, then yes, GMing will be hard. The reason some posters are identifying other possible approaches and techniques is because they have been asked for concrete examples of how GMing 5e D&D can be made less demanding.

If the parameters for discussion are _how can GM prep and demands on GM time and energy be reduced in a game where the main orientation of play is towards the players working through material provided by the GM from his/her prepared notes_, then the answer is obvious: it can't be. I mean, there might be some efficiencies like using already-prepared stat blocks (as @hawkeyefan has suggested) and cribbing exising maps (as someone elase suggested). But most people are probably already doing that as much as they happily can.

This is why I have been taking _5e D&D _literally but talking about techniques that move away from the approach italicised above.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Darth Solo (Feb 28, 2020)

D/GM are more important:

The D/GM is more significant due to scarcity and skill: Everyone can't run a game, especially run a game well. Is it "hard"? Definitely "harder" than showing up with a character sheet. Even running a game "Lazy GM" style, it's more work via improv than what the players do because of NPC load.

Call D/GMs "more valuable". "Value" translates as "importance" due to prominence at the gaming table - "prominence" equating to "work load". Like previous posters have noted, players can divorce themselves from a campaign post-game. 

D/GMs are ALWAYS dealing with the campaign, whether players are present or not.

I know there's a company within our hobby that want to diminish the importance of D/GMs, but that only harms our hobby by marginalizing D/GMs. We need more of US. If D/GMs feel unimportant, they won't run games.

That's a form of "Gatekeeping" in itself.


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In a game that uses a technique like "kickers", or otherwise has the players play a role in framing and set-up, generally that will continue. One would expect the players to drive the action to a considerable extent. For instance, in my Dark Sun game the PCs ended up sheltering in a safe house that one of the players posited was familiar to that player's PC. A fair bit of action revolved around that.
> 
> In this sense it is more than just the GM tying backstories into an adventure that s/he plans. That's how it reduces GM prep requirements.




But if a campaign has been going on for long enough, there are prior events in the campaign that can also work as inspiration for further adventures. It doesn't necessarily make it quicker or easier to write up a session, but it might make it easier to germinate ideas.



pemerton said:


> I'm confused. The post of mine that you quoted wasn't a reply to you. It was a post that was responding to the general theme of _must GMing be hard work?_, which had also crystallised into an actual request for advice about how to reduce prep for a 5e D&D game.




Sorry. I understood your post to be part of the ongoing discussion, where there were some people suggesting importing techniques/ideas from other games into D&D 5E, and others (mostly those who *are currently running D&D 5E*) were trying to explain why those techniques/ideas/whatever didn't seem likely to ease prep time for the games they were actually running. I don't think I remember you doing that, and I apologize if it seemed I was saying you were.



pemerton said:


> If the parameters for discussion are _how can GM prep and demands on GM time and energy be reduced in a game where the main orientation of play is towards the players working through material provided by the GM from his/her prepared notes_, then the answer is obvious: it can't be. I mean, there might be some efficiencies like using already-prepared stat blocks (as @hawkeyefan has suggested) and cribbing exising maps (as someone elase suggested). But most people are probably already doing that as much as they happily can.
> 
> This is why I have been taking _5e D&D _literally but talking about techniques that move away from the approach italicised above.




My experience of the campaigns I'm running is that there's more of a feedback loop, once they're going. The players/characters decide what to do, sometimes suggesting new things; I the DM figure out what's between them and what they want to do. There have been side quests that have turned into major events, and there are what seem to me like major story threads still hanging. So, I might write up notes for a session, but I'm pulling ideas from what the players/characters say and do.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The question, in my mind anyway, is how can we reduce the workload on DM's in order to entice more people to DM. One possible solution is to involve players more and dump some of the workload off on them. The reaction is generally that doing so will impinge on DM authority and we cannot possibly do that.
> 
> Are there players who are reluctant/resistant? I'm sure there are. But, we'll generally never know how much reluctance/resistance there is, because any suggestion that we change the current paradigm is immediately dismissed out of hand.
> 
> I'm not offering a panacea solution here. I'm offering ONE solution. No one else seems to be willing to do even that.




I never commented on this earlier as I never had issue with the _funload_ (since I enjoy it) but given that you brought me into this part of the conversation - I actually really like your idea of players designing some NPCs and I can definitely incorporate some of that into my game - I even know how to in my current campaign*. I'm not a fan of the dungeon design sharing, perhaps in a different game I could see myself doing that.

*PCs have spent some time in the city, it is their 4th visit - essentially instead of using 'downtime activities' or whatever, I'm going to ask them to draw up to 5 NPCs that they have had dealings/relationships with, positive, negative or indifferent. They are welcome to draw up 1 NPC, 5 being the maximum.

But here is where you and me Hussar (and perhaps @haweyefan) disagree. For me to incorporate these NPCs into the story will require more work (fun) because I'm running an AP, the usual suspects are all there already. This would likely be in addition to what is already planned. But do not get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I like this player investment into the setting. Some players might enjoy this process and give me a full 5 NPCs, others might only give me 1 or 2. Whatever I get will be good, just means a richer story.

@hawkeyefan apologies I did not reply to your post specifically, but I just wanted to mention that my player's backstories are very rich and have only but grown over the course of the campaign - so I constantly have fertile ground. I have never enjoyed D&D more as I'm doing these last few years.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I never commented on this earlier since I never had issue with the _funload_ (since I enjoy it) but given that you brought me into this part of the conversation - I actually really like your idea of players designing some NPCs and I can definitely incorporate some of that into my game - I even known how in my current campaign*. I'm not a fan of the dungeon design sharing, perhaps in a different game I could see myself doing that.
> 
> *PCs have spent some time in the city, it is there 4th visit - essentially instead of using 'downtime activities' or whatever, I'm going to ask them to draw up to 5 NPCs that they have had dealings/relationships with, positive, negative or indifferent. They are welcome to draw up 1 NPC, 5 being the maximum.
> 
> ...




That’s awesome. I honestly have found 5E to really click for me, and I’m loving it overall, too.

I like your idea about introducing player crafted NPCs as contacts or resources for the PCs. Incorporating that may wind up being more work, but you’re obviously cool with it, so that’s not a problem.

Who knows, though? Maybe it works out so well that you start off doing it right from the start of your next campaign and maybe it lessens the load a bit there. Or if not, then it at least means you and your players are enjoying it.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But what about Thor, huh? He’s an honorary Guardian at this point!
> 
> Gotta get ur Asgard on!



Meh.  He's a Thor loser.  Worse than a wookie.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s awesome. I honestly have found 5E to really click for me, and I’m loving it overall, too.
> 
> I like your idea about introducing player crafted NPCs as contacts or resources for the PCs. Incorporating that may wind up being more work, but you’re obviously cool with it, so that’s not a problem.
> 
> Who knows, though? Maybe it works out so well that you start off doing it right from the start of your next campaign and maybe it lessens the load a bit there. Or if not, then it at least means you and your players are enjoying it.



My players create backgrounds for their PCs before the first session.  I encourage them to create NPCs and even small villages as part of their background creation.  Which reminds me.  It's about time for that hermit one of the players created to crawl out of the background.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Anecdotes abound of tables refusing to pursue other games and DMs capitulating.  Heck, I can't get my tables to consider BitD despite my enthusiasm.  Luckily for my players, my current campaign is still of interest to me or they'd be facing a stark choice.
> 
> I saw similar bias towards d20 game engines in the 3.X era.  Some people want the comfort of a familiar engine even if a different engine offers better* game play.
> 
> ...




I think it's a mistake to paint this in terms of "better" or "worse".  That's a pretty nebulous rabbit hole.  OTOH, I do think that it's rather telling that there is virtually no advice given to DM's on how to reduce their workload in D&D.  The majority of gamers only know D&D.  And, in D&D, it's always presented, since pretty much day 1, that the DM will do the majority of the work on the campaign, and the players will only be responsible for their own characters.  

I think that if we started seeing advice in D&D books on how to spread the workload out, you actually wouldn't get as much push back as it seems.  If you build it, they will come.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 28, 2020)

Sadras said:


> /snip
> 
> But here is where you and me Hussar (and perhaps @haweyefan) disagree. For me to incorporate these NPCs into the story will require more work (fun) *because I'm running an AP*, the usual suspects are all there already. This would likely be in addition to what is already planned. But do not get me wrong, I'm not complaining - I like this player investment into the setting. Some players might enjoy this process and give me a full 5 NPCs, others might only give me 1 or 2. Whatever I get will be good, just means a richer story.
> /snip




Honestly?  I think this is the direction that the producers of D&D have taken to take the workload (or funload ) off the DM's shoulders for the most part.  The VAST library of adventures for D&D means that there is pretty much someone for everyone.  And, once you do use an AP (I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh myself), so much of the yeoman's work is done for you.  It does make running a campaign a lot easier.  

The massive popularity of the 5e adventure path's, IMO, speak to this.  It's never been easier to sit down and run D&D.  I mean, good grief, how many hundreds of hours of play could you get out of the 5e AP's right now without a whole lot of work needed from the DM.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> If the players' role is to show up and play and nothing else, how is my 99% of the workload on the DM hyperbole?  If the DM is in charge of tracking all the information both before and after play, designing every single thing that the players will play through, and everything else, how is that not 99%?   What per cent would you call it?



In terms of both time and effort, considerably less than 99%.

I have 4 players in my game plus me; we play for more or less 4 hours each week, that's 20 total hours.  I might spend maybe on average* 4 hours a week between sessions working on game-related stuff (the only thing I guaranteed do every week is the game log, which often doesn't take long).  So, we're on 24 total hours of which I spend roughly 8 - that's 33%.

* - widely variable; often less than 1 but occasionally a lot which brings the average up.

I'll grant the ratio of actual effort expended is higher, maybe more like 50%.  Still a far cry from 99.



> And, well, you have to remember, my entire group, for a long time, consists of multiple DM's.  Exploiting rules loopholes and whatnot is the sign of bad play and, well, since we've all been DM's, no one wants to do it to another DM.



First off, I'm both a DM and a player and as a player I'll happily look for any loophole or advantage I can find!  It's all just part of advocating for my character, which after all is my main role - right?



> One of the benefits of playing with folks with DMing experience.  Any and all problems can be traced almost exclusively to the pure players who refuse to invest the time to run a game.



That's more than a bit harsh, I think.

Some people - of whom I'd doubtless be one if I wasn't also a DM - actively don't want to see what's "under the hood" as it ruins their enjoyment of the game.

Same thing with me and cars.  I don't want to know what's under the hood or how any of it works, I just want the damn thing to start when I turn the key and take me where I want to go.  By your definitions that makes me a problem driver because I neither build nor fix cars, I only drive them.



> If your group is nothing but pure players, I can see why your DM workload is so heavy and why trust is so hard to come by.



My current players are four long-time veterans.  One is the guy who largely taught me how to DM (and is still DMing today); two are almost-pure players who between them have DMed a total of maybe 11 sessions in their very long gaming careers; and the fourth is a 25-year player who has never DMed and has - as far as I know* - absolutely no interest in doing so.

* - and were there any interest I rather think I'd be the first to hear about it, as this player is also my wife.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

pemerton said:


> In this sense it is more than just the GM tying backstories into an adventure that s/he plans. That's how it reduces GM prep requirements.



I'm honestly not sure it does, though.

It _changes_ GM prep requirements, no question there, but the effort level is similar*.  Instead of working on designing the adventure etc. from scratch, the effort now goes in to tying the PCs' backstories together into something coherent that still fits with the setting.

* - remember, you're used to doing it this way, so what's limited-effort for you might not be to someone else.  Conversely, I'm used to designing adventures from scratch and so find it less effort than would someone who's not done much of it.

An analogy might be the use of published modules.  For some GMs they cut the prep time down to nearly 0 - just open the book and go.  But for others they don't cut the prep time by much at all, they just change the manner of work that needs to be done: instead of mapping and doing up stat blocks while having the backstory already done for you as part of your campaign, you're instead stripping out backstory and editing stuff to make it fit in your campaign while having the mapping and stat blocks already done.



> If the parameters for discussion are _how can GM prep and demands on GM time and energy be reduced in a game where the main orientation of play is towards the players working through material provided by the GM from his/her prepared notes_, then the answer is obvious: it can't be. I mean, there might be some efficiencies like using already-prepared stat blocks (as @hawkeyefan has suggested) and cribbing exising maps (as someone elase suggested). But most people are probably already doing that as much as they happily can.



There's some other things one can do also, but they don't so much reduce overall work as move a lot of it to a more convenient time - that being, before play ever begins.

My favourite among such things these days is to, long before session 0, have your setting's history (ancient and recent), pantheons, and local geography pretty much nailed down.  That way, once you start running the game you can in effect riff off yourself, in full confidence that everything will remain consistent.  The best part once play begins: the hard work is already done!

Similar to Tolkein largely nailing down Middle Earth's history etc. before ever putting his authoring pen to paper.

Of course, much depends on how much mileage one intends to get out of a setting.  If you're looking at running a 10-month single-linear-party quick-hitter of a campaign you can 99.9% likely get away with tons less setting prep than if you're looking to run a 10-year multi-party behemoth.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Sadras said:


> *PCs have spent some time in the city, it is their 4th visit - essentially instead of using 'downtime activities' or whatever, I'm going to ask them to draw up to 5 NPCs that they have had dealings/relationships with, positive, negative or indifferent. They are welcome to draw up 1 NPC, 5 being the maximum.



You know, I can see a situation in my current campaign where this could work out quite well; I could have them do this for the city where they seem to have ended up basing themselves.

The only thing is, I'd have to specify the NPCs be "minor" - merchants, innkeepers, commoners, minor guild functionaries, etc. and nobody of any significant class level - as most of the major ones are already done and quite a few have already entered play as NPCs.  I'd also have to specify or at least strongly encourage Human-only as it's a mostly-Human place.

Like @Sadras , I'd likely also have trouble working them in to play on any regular basis; not because I'm running an AP but because they're pretty much only ever in town during downtime.  But even if I didn't work them in, posting write-ups on each in the online town gazetteer would add to the 'depth'.

(of my four players, I'm ironclad sure two would be all over this but the other two might not touch it with a barge pole)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Dozens, possibly more.  It depends a lot on the game engine, campaign type (common environment, level of continuity between missions, expected PC power level, expected amount and power of extraordinary abilities aka magic), , and specific GM (what does the GM find difficult during a session and what costs time outside of it).



Everything you say in your post is sensible enough. I'm not 100% sure how it is consistent with widespread GM-driven approaches in a way that the ideas you've criticised are not.



Nagol said:


> Many newer GMs have confessed they get overwhelmed during a session by adjudicating consequence.



I think this is correct. It's why in this and some other recent threads I have posted and re-posted that managing the fiction, particularly in relation to framing and consequences, is fundamental to successful GMing.

In my view D&D rulebooks have far too few examples of this. (Moldvay Basic is probably the best. I think Gygax's DMG is weak on it, especially as it has so many admonitions not to let players "get away with" stuff. That might have made sense in Gygax's hardcore wargaming crowd, but I don't think works well for more general consumption. The 4e books have few examples of resolution and consequence-narration. The contrast here with the Classic Traveller rules - 30 years older and hundreds of pages shorter but with lots of good advice on this - is marked in my view.

I think one source of reluctance in this respect is a desire not to be prescriptive - to rely on general principles like "players can have their PCs try anything" and "the GM will manage the balance of the campaign". But those are unhelpful for a new GM.



Nagol said:


> AP if the PCs wander off script, let them founder a little, but find ways to keep offering them back onto the path.  If the players refuse to take the ramps, talk to the players about expectations.



This is another area where I think GMing advice could be presented more plainly and helpfully. If the goal of play is for the players to work through the AP, then the GM needs to have techniques ready-to-hand that will bring this about. It's counterproductive to this sort of play, for instance, to have advice sections that say "The players can try and have their PCs attempt anything."


----------



## Sadras (Feb 28, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> You know, I can see a situation in my current campaign where this could work out quite well; I could have them do this for the city where they seem to have ended up basing themselves.
> 
> The only thing is, I'd have to specify the NPCs be "minor" - merchants, innkeepers, commoners, minor guild functionaries, etc. and nobody of any significant class level - as most of the major ones are already done and quite a few have already entered play as NPCs.  I'd also have to specify or at least strongly encourage Human-only as it's a mostly-Human place.
> 
> (of my four players, I'm ironclad sure two would be all over this but the other two might not touch it with a barge pole)




I would probably also add some constraints on these 5 PCs for setting purposes (race and such like), but also to deter the metagame PCs having an armourer, an alchemist guy, a sage guy, a bowyer/fletcher, a gem guy...etc. I do not mind a contact or two, but it isn't necessary to turn every roleplaying opportunity into muchkinism. I'd prefer variety - a possible love interest, a happy drunk, a mischievous street urchin, a newly married couple, an idealistic acolyte, a recent widow, out-of-luck merchant, a pushy flower vendor, a musical duo, a retired falconer, a generous aristocrat, a lascivious innkeeper, a miserable midwife, bookworm-y town guard, an alcoholic sage, a roguish tradesman, a droll linguist, a burly dressmaker...etc  



> Like @Sadras , I'd likely also have trouble working them in to play on any regular basis; not because I'm running an AP but because they're pretty much only ever in town during downtime.  But even if I didn't work them in, posting write-ups on each in the online town gazetteer would add to the 'depth'.




I might have been unclear, maybe - I said I won't have trouble working them in.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I think it's a mistake to paint this in terms of "better" or "worse".  That's a pretty nebulous rabbit hole.  OTOH, I do think that it's rather telling that there is virtually no advice given to DM's on how to reduce their workload in D&D.  The majority of gamers only know D&D.  And, in D&D, it's always presented, since pretty much day 1, that the DM will do the majority of the work on the campaign, and the players will only be responsible for their own characters.
> 
> I think that if we started seeing advice in D&D books on how to spread the workload out, you actually wouldn't get as much push back as it seems.  If you build it, they will come.




You know a dirty little secret that no one wants to acknowledge? 
It's not the prep workload that's the problem.  WotC, Paizo et al. have that covered with their APs.  No need to create NPCs, or map, or work out consistent plots and narratives.  Buy this one book and you are covered for months of DMing. 

People still won't DM.

It is the in-session pressure and responsibility that keeps people out of the DM's chair.  It is the fear of scrutiny, being the centre of attention, feeling that you have become responsible for the others' enjoyment.  It is where public speaking meets babysitting and gets run over by hosting a party.  All you wanted to do is have fun with some friends and now you have to do this _work_.  Let Mikey do it.  He's done it before.  Playing is fun.  Someone else can DM and deal with the headache.

The only people how whinge about the extra prep are those who enjoy creating and running their own stuff and spend the time because they like spending the time.  It'd just be nice if it sometimes took less time.  These are the self-selected group of people who already passed the primary barrier.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Well, there's the clear benefit of player engagement.  They are creating material for THEIR characters.  Hopefully they will be interested and be able to create material that is tailored to the group.



Hopefully? So what if they aren't interested (or are simply too busy), and they just mail it in? Or they try their best but the result is rather flavorless? Doesn't that just create more work for the DM?

I can see the advantage of having NPCs that are established by the players. As I've said, I encourage my players to do that very thing in their backgrounds. If a player came to me mid campaign and wanted to introduce an old friend or something, I'd be delighted!

That said, something like the illusionist from upthread is a step too far, IMO. You're diminishing elements of exploration and surprise, in the hope that the player generated NPC will result in better engagement. That's a big trade off.

I've no doubt that with the right group it could work (one that appreciates things like player ownership over exploration and surprise, for example). But it certainly won't work for every group, including mine. My group favors discovery in RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> It _changes_ GM prep requirements, no question there, but the effort level is similar*. Instead of working on designing the adventure etc. from scratch, the effort now goes in to tying the PCs' backstories together into something coherent that still fits with the setting.



I can't comment on _effort_, which seems like it could vary with the individual as you say. But as far as _prep_ is concerned I'm pretty confident that it reduces it.

You don't need to prepare an "adventure" ie a series of situations, adversaries, etc - because that has already been done as part of PC-building.

I think _tying the PCs' backstories together _is not the right description. In neither of the illustrations from actual play that I posted was their very much backstory. For the Cthulhu Dark game there was no backstory beyond occupation (some backstory - eg homes, relationships - emerged during play after the initial set-up). What there was was a current episode in which the PC was involved.

In the case of the "kickers" for our Dark Sun game there also was not much backstory - none for the gladiator who missed out on adulation, a little bit for the other two PCs. What there was, in each case, was a situation that would prompt some sort of evocative or meaningful response from the PC.

As a GM, in neither case did I have to "tie backstories together". What I had to do was weave together the three situations.

To some extent that is a matter of skill and practice. But there are also tools that can be used. For instance, Dark Sun is very heavy with prominent tropes - Sorcerer-Kings, templars, psionics, gladiators, etc. And 4e combat resolution makes a big deal of space and positioning. I drew on these things to weave the situations together: conflict in the stands (templars investigating the sudden death of the Eladrin PC's contact) merged with conflict in the arena (involving the two gladiators vs angry members of the crowd).

To build on @Hussar's remark about GMing advice: it is possible to give advice which can help with these sorts of techniques, therefore making them easier to implement for those who might want to.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> You know a dirty little secret that no one wants to acknowledge?
> It's not the prep workload that's the problem.  WotC, Paizo et al. have that covered with their APs.  No need to create NPCs, or map, or work out consistent plots and narratives.  Buy this one book and you are covered for months of DMing.
> 
> People still won't DM.
> ...



I think this is right.

So let's make it easier to discharge the responsibility!

I think @Hussar is right to try and reduce the sense that the GM is responsible for others' enjoyment. That's where the emphasis on players bringing their best to the table makes sense.

But there's also scope for plainer and clearer GM advice, I think. Some indie games - I'm thinking Burning Wheel revised/Gold and Apocalpyse World - are streets ahead of any D&D advice I've seen in this respect. They're not straightforwardly transplantable to the D&D context  - they're too opinionated for a mass-market game., and of course are oriented towards their own systems which differ from D&D in various ways.

But they show that it can be done.

I'm one of those who think that Moldvay is the peak of GMing advice for D&D, but there's so much more that can be done in giving advice about how to adjudicate, narrate consequences etc.

(For completeness: I think you and I aren't too far apart on this particular issue.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 28, 2020)

@Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.

@pemerton - I agree completely about Burning Wheel and the general difficulty of porting over elements form indie games to D&D. I do think it's possible, and useful, but it's work. The hack of BitD flashbacks for 5e is a great example of how it can be done well.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 28, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> @Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.



The discovery I'm referring to is not that variety. Rather, it's where the DM knows what's going on behind the scenes but the players don't, and they have to suss it out (or not). 

I'm just going off of the earlier example in the thread, which was an illusionist who had framed a prince. If you have the player design that illusionist, all sense of discovery (with respect to how I have explained I am using the term) is lost.

If the NPC is just a minor bit NPC, I don't think it really matters. Sure, the player might be a little more engaged seeing someone they imagined. On the other hand, it'd probably be less work for me to do it myself. I can just improvise an unimportant NPC on the spot (though I recognize that might not be the case for all GMs). The only real work there is jotting down sufficient notes so that if the NPC reoccurs, they are consistent.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> In terms of both time and effort, considerably less than 99%.
> 
> I have 4 players in my game plus me; we play for more or less 4 hours each week, that's 20 total hours.  I might spend maybe on average* 4 hours a week between sessions working on game-related stuff (the only thing I guaranteed do every week is the game log, which often doesn't take long).  So, we're on 24 total hours of which I spend roughly 8 - that's 33%.
> 
> ...




It's probably closer to 80%.  Time is only one component of the workload.  The typical player doesn't do squat for the game outside of the session.  Sometimes the players will talk a little and plan something.  Sometimes they will work on their characters, if they level fairly often.  The DM on the other hand is planning out quite a bit of the game.  During game play a player will have his PC interacting with the environment and NPCs, but it's the DM who is adjudicating every single one of those actions, times 4, *and describing the environment for the players to interact with.* The workload is significantly higher than you are estimating, but still significantly less than 99%.

Edit: Put in the bold section.  It's not bolded for any other reason than it's the edit.


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It's probably closer to 80%.  Time is only one component of the workload.  The typical player doesn't do squat for the game outside of the session.  Sometimes the players will talk a little and plan something.  Sometimes they will work on their characters, if they level fairly often.  The DM on the other hand is planning out quite a bit of the game.  During game play a player will have his PC interacting with the environment and NPCs, but it's the DM who is adjudicating every single one of those actions, times 4.  The workload is significantly higher than you are estimating, but still significantly less than 99%.




Agreed, in part. I know I'm fortunate, but I do have players who contribute outside of just playing their characters. I don't feel as though I do 99% of the work at either table I'm running, but I do feel as though I'm doing more than one seventh of the work (both tables have had six players; one will be down to five starting next session). I think if I were to try to quantify it, I'd say it feels as though I do about half the work, maybe a little more, and that might not vary much with party size. While I spend a few hours prepping a session, the sessions themselves don't usually feel all that much like work to me. At least, outside of combat.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> Agreed, in part. I know I'm fortunate, but I do have players who contribute outside of just playing their characters. I don't feel as though I do 99% of the work at either table I'm running, but I do feel as though I'm doing more than one seventh of the work (both tables have had six players; one will be down to five starting next session). I think if I were to try to quantify it, I'd say it feels as though I do about half the work, maybe a little more, and that might not vary much with party size. While I spend a few hours prepping a session, the sessions themselves don't usually feel all that much like work to me. At least, outside of combat.



Yeah.  The numbers will vary from table to table.  One of my players plans out his PCs from 1-20, often 2 or 3 times as he thinks and rethinks them.  He also goes over everything that happens or has happened from the beginning of the campaign on.  I personally think he spends too much time over analyzing, but it's part of his fun so I don't say anything.  It often results in fun things coming out of left field, too.  One campaign, there was some bit of obscure knowledge that they needed to find out about when the PCs were about 17th level.  The players were discussing things and this player says, "Remember that librarian we ran into in X town?  Maybe he will know."  This library was in a small town on the other side of the continent and I had completely forgotten about him.  Suddenly they were seriously contemplating going to see a small town librarian for the info.  It was great.


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  The numbers will vary from table to table.  One of my players plans out his PCs from 1-20, often 2 or 3 times as he thinks and rethinks them.  He also goes over everything that happens or has happened from the beginning of the campaign on.  I personally think he spends too much time over analyzing, but it's part of his fun so I don't say anything.  It often results in fun things coming out of left field, too.  One campaign, there was some bit of obscure knowledge that they needed to find out about when the PCs were about 17th level.  The players were discussing things and this player says, "Remember that librarian we ran into in X town?  Maybe he will know."  This library was in a small town on the other side of the continent and I had completely forgotten about him.  Suddenly they were seriously contemplating going to see a small town librarian for the info.  It was great.




Heh. My wife takes notes in-session, then types them up and posts them as a Google Doc for the party. In both tables. The last session she typed up, she ended up with eleven pages for a four-hour session, and that's typical. If someone has an idea like that, it's pretty easy to go to the notes and check it (though given that the older campaign's notes are 526 pages, it's not always super-speedy to load ...). She probably spends an hour or two typing the notes up for every session, and I greatly appreciate how much easier it makes my DMing life.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> The discovery I'm referring to is not that variety. Rather, it's where the DM knows what's going on behind the scenes but the players don't, and they have to suss it out (or not).
> 
> I'm just going off of the earlier example in the thread, which was an illusionist who had framed a prince. If you have the player design that illusionist, all sense of discovery (with respect to how I have explained I am using the term) is lost.
> 
> If the NPC is just a minor bit NPC, I don't think it really matters. Sure, the player might be a little more engaged seeing someone they imagined. On the other hand, it'd probably be less work for me to do it myself. I can just improvise an unimportant NPC on the spot (though I recognize that might not be the case for all GMs). The only real work there is jotting down sufficient notes so that if the NPC reoccurs, they are consistent.



I don't think it's necessarily true that the GM knows what's going on behind the scenes, even in D&D (although it's much less likely here).  You can play in a sense that everything's on the table and you'll find out what happens through play.  This is a case where the play moves the fiction.

To touch on an oft-used example:  a PC is outside the walls of a keep they want to get into, and says, "hey, I think I remember a story about the builders of this castle having a secret door for escaping it that supposedly comes out around here.  I'm going to search the wall to find that secret door."  Now, the important thing about this is that none of this has been previously established in the game -- neither in play or in the GM's notes (which typically don't even exist in this style of play except as a log of play outcomes).  But, this statement can be tested by the games mechanics -- even in D&D.  The GM calls for a check, the stakes are negotiated (by whatever the game/table uses), and the check is rolled.  On a success, the PC does find a secret door -- it exists after all!  On a failure, the GM complicates the situation to the detriment of the PC's goals.  That can be pretty broad, in this case, as the PC goal was to gain entry to the castle, finding a secret door was just the method.  The GM could frustrate the method and say no such door exists, or you find where one was but it's been collapsed/sealed or the GM could add badness by saying you find a door, but when you open it it's guarded!  Or, while searching, a guard patrol rounds the corner and challenges you!  The GM could establish that a door exists, but complication, a door doesn't exist, or even that the existence of a door is still unknown but you have to deal with this new problem before you could pursue it further.

In this style of play, the GM doesn't know anything more than the players.  Everyone's playing to find out.  This is, largely, how Powered by the Apocalypse games work.  The GM can prep complications, or think of ideas before play, but they need to hold on lightly as the game can quickly move well outside of any such prep.  It's not useful to do much work here.  Further, the GM's job isn't to spur on players -- they frame a scene that has a complication and then follow the player's lead, only adding complications as the mechanics call for them.  Adjudication of action is simpler, but you're the bringer of bad neww.

Now, I'll agree this is difficult to do in D&D.  It's hard to run a D&D game zero prep because of how detailed and swingy the combat sections of the game are.  You usually have to do some work, or have done that work for a time to be good enough to do it on the fly and not break things.  But, you can do it in the exploration and social pillars to a great degree.  I often prep social/exploration challenges as just a list of interesting complications/adds and some motivations so I can react with a bit of forethought.  Takes a few minutes, and, honestly, I usually end up doing it on the fly as the players present things I hadn't considered before.  The minimal prep does aid in setting up a pattern for me to fall back on, but that's really all you need.  Skill challenges in 5e work very well with this so long as you don't script them.

An example of the skill challenge social pillar in this style for 5e:  I had two PCs that were investigating a rumor they had heard about one of the PC's background NPCs -- a nemesis to that PC.  They started by taking the hook I had thrown that there was someone at the Forge (a location in Sigil) that had been overheard talking about the NPC.  So, the PCs went there.  I started a 6/3 skill challenge for this -- 3 failures meant that they would not succeed at their goal of finding information -- what that looked like I left open to see where the fiction was at that point.  6 successes meant they would find information -- what that was I left open pending the ratio of success/failures.  Each failure would complicate the situation, each success improve it.  So, they went to the forge and succeeded at a task to ask around and find the person who had been overheard: 1/0.  They then failed at an attempt to persuade the person to talk about the NPC.  1/1.  This meant I complicated the situation, which I did by deciding this person didn't actually have the information they sought, but might know who did depending on future challenges.  The PCs then successfully intimidated the person, so they revealed that they didn't know much more than was already related by the rumor, but that someone called the Butcher did and told them where he usually was.  2/1.  I deployed the previous failure and moved them forward.

They went to meet the Butcher, who was described as a huge half-demon actually wearing a butcher's apron and with a massive cleaver at his side, sitting in a disreputable pub.  Diablo fans may notice the similarities.  One PC immediately attempted to intimidate the Butcher, I suppose since that worked last time.  It didn't work here, and the PCs noticed that everyone else in the bar had stood up to stand with the Butcher.  2/2, with failure causing an imminent threat of violence they were ill prepared to deal with.  The other PC used persuasion to settle the situation down and succeeded, 3/2.  They then used perception to look to see if there was anything useful about the Butcher or bar they could use to negotiate.  That success (4/2) lead to noticing that there were a number of plaques on the wall thanking the Butcher for community service and that the seat the Butcher occupied at the bar looked to be handsomely custom made for his size, a clear sign of favor.  Not wanted to guess, the PC then using Insight to try to suss out if the Butcher really was a nice person that this community loved or if they had scared the local population into giving false accolades.  The PC hoped it was the former, so on when they succeeded, it was, indeed the former -- the Butcher was a nice guy fiercely protective of the local community.  5/2.  The PCs then deployed this knowledge to gain advantage on a persuasion check by framing getting information on the NPC they sought as a way to help the community by dealing with a danger.  They succeeded, 6/2 and the Butcher gave them information.  However, since the did almost fail, I tempered that info to say that the NPC had left town, but that there were lackeys still here, which gave the PCs a win in that they could directly harm the NPC's organization and get better intel on what that NPC was up to.

None of that was scripted or thought out before play.  I used the themes of Sigil (which I don't own any setting material on and only read a few entries online to get the overview of -- and a map) to push play from my end on failures, but the bulk of the direction of that scene was the PC's.  If they succeeded, the fictional framing moved in their favor, usually according to their wants.  If they failed, it moved away from where they wanted it.  I really only had input on failures, and that constrained by the player goals.  The rest was reacting to what they did by calling for checks.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> Heh. My wife takes notes in-session, then types them up and posts them as a Google Doc for the party. In both tables. The last session she typed up, she ended up with eleven pages for a four-hour session, and that's typical. If someone has an idea like that, it's pretty easy to go to the notes and check it (though given that the older campaign's notes are 526 pages, it's not always super-speedy to load ...). She probably spends an hour or two typing the notes up for every session, and I greatly appreciate how much easier it makes my DMing life.



Yeah.  The player I mentioned above just has a great memory.  I have another who is a copious note taker.  Not 11 pages worth, but typically 1-3.  We also have sessions that run about 4 hours.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

@lowkey13 

I follow the analogy, and as someone who's had people over for food and drinks a few times, I see the range you're talking about. Heck, I don't find hosting anything like as stressful in the moment as preparing for hosting (which isn't all that different from my experience of DMing, and reflects something about my personality). I don't think we're disagreeing. Are we disagreeing?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 28, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't think it's necessarily true that the GM knows what's going on behind the scenes, even in D&D (although it's much less likely here).  You can play in a sense that everything's on the table and you'll find out what happens through play.  This is a case where the play moves the fiction.
> 
> To touch on an oft-used example:  a PC is outside the walls of a keep they want to get into, and says, "hey, I think I remember a story about the builders of this castle having a secret door for escaping it that supposedly comes out around here.  I'm going to search the wall to find that secret door."  Now, the important thing about this is that none of this has been previously established in the game -- neither in play or in the GM's notes (which typically don't even exist in this style of play except as a log of play outcomes).  But, this statement can be tested by the games mechanics -- even in D&D.  The GM calls for a check, the stakes are negotiated (by whatever the game/table uses), and the check is rolled.  On a success, the PC does find a secret door -- it exists after all!  On a failure, the GM complicates the situation to the detriment of the PC's goals.  That can be pretty broad, in this case, as the PC goal was to gain entry to the castle, finding a secret door was just the method.  The GM could frustrate the method and say no such door exists, or you find where one was but it's been collapsed/sealed or the GM could add badness by saying you find a door, but when you open it it's guarded!  Or, while searching, a guard patrol rounds the corner and challenges you!  The GM could establish that a door exists, but complication, a door doesn't exist, or even that the existence of a door is still unknown but you have to deal with this new problem before you could pursue it further.
> 
> ...



Long post, apologies but I'm busy atm and can't read it in its entirety. However, I did want to address the opening statement. You are correct that it isn't necessary for the GM to always know what is going on. However, for a game like mine where player discovery is important, at a minimum the illusion needs to be there and maintained. 

If my group makes a hard left from what I anticipate, I might have to improv the rest of the session. But I won't tell them that. 

I recall back in the day, when I first started trying to integrate improvisation into my game (as opposed to earlier, when I could sometimes admittedly by a bit of a railroader). My group from then was remarking what a great game I had run, and I confessed to them that it had been all off the cuff. You could literally watch the expressions sour on their faces. The campaign basically crashed and burned after that. I had shown them what was behind the curtain, and it ruined the experience for them.

So nowadays, while I rely heavily on improv, I don't tell them that. It might not ruin the game for all of them, but it might for some. Which, frankly, would be counterproductive. They're certainly aware that I sometimes need to improve, but I don't tell them what or to what extent.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Also @Maxperson
> 
> So, going back the earlier "throwing a party" analogy.
> 
> ...



This is a useful look at the unique duties of a party host, even in informal situations.  I might quibble on some (duty to ensure fun), but that's beside the point.

However, you only looked at the unique duties of the host and declared them more.  Where's the analysis of the attendee unique duties? They have to travel, the hist does not.  They have to, in the potluck example, prepare food for travel.  They have to ensure they've brought everything they need.  I'm sure a few more things might pop up, say one attendee has a hard time getting a babysitter or has to seitch shifts at work to come, but thise aren't directly party related.

A full analysis can't stop when you've collected the evidence that supports your assumption.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Not that I know of! I was just thinking it through more; there's something else that I thought of, but I think I will start a separate thread about that.



Dude, you're like my mother.  She can't have a conversation without something in the middle starting up another conversation, which starts a third, and...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Long post, apologies but I'm busy atm and can't read it in its entirety. However, I did want to address the opening statement. You are correct that it isn't necessary for the GM to always know what is going on. However, for a game like mine where player discovery is important, at a minimum the illusion needs to be there and maintained.
> 
> If my group makes a hard left from what I anticipate, I might have to improv the rest of the session. But I won't tell them that.
> 
> ...



That sounds like you found out a clear incompatibility between you and those players.  I'm not sure I see the utility in hiding, though.  If a player in my game is going to be so disappointed I didn't script something they enjoyed that they stop enjoying it, it sounds better we find that out quickly and find more compatible games.  That goes in the other direction as well.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 28, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I recall back in the day, when I first started trying to integrate improvisation into my game (as opposed to earlier, when I could sometimes admittedly by a bit of a railroader). My group from then was remarking what a great game I had run, and I confessed to them that it had been all off the cuff. You could literally watch the expressions sour on their faces. The campaign basically crashed and burned after that. I had shown them what was behind the curtain, and it ruined the experience for them.



That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is a useful look at the unique duties of a party host, even in informal situations.  I might quibble on some (duty to ensure fun), but that's beside the point.
> 
> However, you only looked at the unique duties of the host and declared them more.  Where's the analysis of the attendee unique duties? They have to travel, the hist does not.  They have to, in the potluck example, prepare food for travel.  They have to ensure they've brought everything they need.  I'm sure a few more things might pop up, say one attendee has a hard time getting a babysitter or has to seitch shifts at work to come, but thise aren't directly party related.
> 
> A full analysis can't stop when you've collected the evidence that supports your assumption.




If the analogy is "host = GM" then I'm not entirely sure one needs to delve into all the ways "guest = player" is or isn't a solid analogy. Sure, guests at parties have different duties/responsibilities than the host, and they're pretty clearly taking on more if the party is a potluck, but that's kinda inherent in the idea that you (as a GM running without much prep) are hosting a potluck, whereas I (a GM prepping adventures, and writing the world for the campaign, and writing up almost all the NPCs) am having people over for a dinner I am preparing, complete with beers picked to go with dinner (and possibly dessert). Neither of us is "hosting wrong," we're just doing things differently--I'm a pretty serious cook, and a pretty serious beer nerd, and I really enjoy the intersection between the two, and I think of cooking (and hosting) as inherently generous and something I'm willing/eager to be responsible for; you (not really you, but the "you" in the analogy) are more interested in the party as a shared responsibility and experience.

Edit. Got ninja'd a bit, not trying to pile on.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> @lowkey13
> 
> I follow the analogy, and as someone who's had people over for food and drinks a few times, I see the range you're talking about. Heck, I don't find hosting anything like as stressful in the moment as preparing for hosting (which isn't all that different from my experience of DMing, and reflects something about my personality). I don't think we're disagreeing. Are we disagreeing?




My spouse likes to throw parties a few times a year.  I despise them.  So we compromise and we throw parties slightly less than a few times a year.

If I felt about GMing as I do parties, there would be nothing that could be done to encourage me to GM that would leave the role recognizable.  "Sure, I'll GM so long as no one else attends and no actions need to be taken in advance or afterwards!"

To an admittedly lesser degree this is where a whole bunch of the player population sits.  They simply don't want the role -- whether that's the mantle of responsibility for fun and fairness, being the centre of attention, being called upon to handle disputes, not having an avatar they can call their own, or the perceived workload before during and after the session will vary from person to person and will almost certainly be a mix of all the above.

To entice more people to GM almost certainly means altering the social and group dynamic aspects of the role at least as much as altering the workload.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> To an admittedly lesser degree this is where a whole bunch of the player population sits.  They simply don't want the role -- whether that's the mantle of responsibility for fun and fairness, being the centre of attention, being called upon to handle disputes, not having an avatar they can call their own, or the perceived workload before during and after the session will vary from person to person and will almost certainly be a mix of all the above.




You mentioned the avatar thing, and it reminded me of this, which my wife puts at the beginning of every session's worth of notes:

Players:
Adam - Orryk - Forest Gnome Monk (Way of the Four Elements, variant)/Wizard
Heath - Fiona - Half-Elf Wizard (Evoker)/Cleric (Knowledge)
John - Taman - Human (variant) Rogue (Inquisitive)/Ranger (Horizon Walker)
Sara - Joybell - Forest Gnome Paladin (Oath of the Ancients)
Reeve - Thneed - Wood Elf Ranger (Hunter Conclave)/Cleric (War)
Bill - Mo - Goliath Bard (College of Lore)

GM: 
Patrick - Everyone Else

"Everyone Else." Put that way it seems like more than it feels.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,




More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.

Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> You mentioned the avatar thing, and it reminded me of this, which my wife puts at the beginning of every session's worth of notes:
> 
> Players:
> Adam - Orryk - Forest Gnome Monk (Way of the Four Elements, variant)/Wizard
> ...




DMPC exists as a concept for a reason.  It is antipattern for a whole host of other reasons.


----------



## prabe (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> DMPC exists as a concept for a reason.  It is antipattern for a whole host of other reasons.




Yeah. I'm not running a DMPC in this campaign because it's not needed (it's a big party). I've run one before, if the party was small and there was a role that seemed to need filling, but it's a bit of a minefield, and I'd prefer to only do so at need.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 28, 2020)

prabe said:


> If the analogy is "host = GM" then I'm not entirely sure one needs to delve into all the ways "guest = player" is or isn't a solid analogy. Sure, guests at parties have different duties/responsibilities than the host, and they're pretty clearly taking on more if the party is a potluck, but that's kinda inherent in the idea that you (as a GM running without much prep) are hosting a potluck, whereas I (a GM prepping adventures, and writing the world for the campaign, and writing up almost all the NPCs) am having people over for a dinner I am preparing, complete with beers picked to go with dinner (and possibly dessert). Neither of us is "hosting wrong," we're just doing things differently--I'm a pretty serious cook, and a pretty serious beer nerd, and I really enjoy the intersection between the two, and I think of cooking (and hosting) as inherently generous and something I'm willing/eager to be responsible for; you (not really you, but the "you" in the analogy) are more interested in the party as a shared responsibility and experience.
> 
> Edit. Got ninja'd a bit, not trying to pile on.



Not at all trying to say that every party is the same or that some "preferred" division of responsiblity exists.  Just banging my drum that absolute statements (either way) aren't true and that some specificity to situation needs to be made.  Also that there's a tendency to stop looking at a scenario when we've found all the things that support our biases -- which I have, too.  I try to examine mine, and it's very helpful to me that I actually play in multiple, different styles based on game/group, so I have opportunity.  I also very much believe that the right way to play is the way that's fun for you.  

But, all of the accusations of insidiousness or one-true-wayism show up on both sides, they're just often ignored by the majority when they align with the majority.  No one in this thread arguing GMing diesn't have to be hard has made any statement that it's the "right" or "best" way to do things, but that accusation has been made.  Meanwhile, it's been said a few  times by numerous posters that ways other than GM-centered play sre "niche" and that niche position is "revealed preference."  These aren't widely potested as one-true-wayism because it fits the biases of most in this thread and so is received with nods.

Sorry, you've actually been a great poster and aren't part of the problems I'm ranting about.  Sometimes the frustration leaks out.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.
> 
> Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.



If you're running "let's see what happens" well, or straight improv, then the strategic decision making should still have a big impact of how the situation turns out. If it doesn't affect the outcome as much it's probably a failure on the GMs part. If the situation in the example was hard enough that they felt some real satisfaction in getting through it I find it odd that the they should care whether it was pre-prepped or done on the fly. I think there's some odd expectations at work on their side of the screen


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Honestly?  I think this is the direction that the producers of D&D have taken to take the workload (or funload ) off the DM's shoulders for the most part.  The VAST library of adventures for D&D means that there is pretty much someone for everyone.  And, once you do use an AP (I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh myself), so much of the yeoman's work is done for you.  It does make running a campaign a lot easier.
> 
> The massive popularity of the 5e adventure path's, IMO, speak to this.  It's never been easier to sit down and run D&D.  I mean, good grief, how many hundreds of hours of play could you get out of the 5e AP's right now without a whole lot of work needed from the DM.




Using prepared material is certainly one of the ways to save prep time. However, you generally still have to read through the material, and those big books can take a lot of time to read. I ran Tomb of Annihilation about a year ago as part of my 5E campaign, and I found it difficult for a number of reasons. I've since decided to only run my own material, and I am finding it far more easy. 

But, I've also been DMing for a long time. I think for those starting out, using prepared material is a good idea. Although even that won't apply to all (I think @prabe mentioned that he can't make sense of the APs). I think that smaller bite size chunks are far more helpful to newer DMs. A few pages and a map, and not a whole lot more. I think the Adventurer's League stuff may be more in line with what's useful to a new DM, and certainly smaller adventures that can be found on the DMs Guild.



Lanefan said:


> I'm honestly not sure it does, though.
> 
> It _changes_ GM prep requirements, no question there, but the effort level is similar*.  Instead of working on designing the adventure etc. from scratch, the effort now goes in to tying the PCs' backstories together into something coherent that still fits with the setting.
> 
> ...




I agree on published modules, as I mentioned above, but I think the smaller the better for newer DMs, generally. 

But when it comes to getting PCs' backstories to "fit the setting", I think it's useful to kind of look at it another way. What if the setting fit the PCs' backstories? Sure, you may have a general setting idea such as "we're going to play Dark Sun at the time of the fall of Kalak" as @pemerton used as an example. But what if that's step 1, step 2 is the players make their characters and related concepts (whether backstory, related NPCs, kickers, or some mix of all), and then step 3 is that the DM fleshes out the other details? 

This allows the player suggested material.....material they'll likely have more vested interest with....to be prominent. Then the DM can structure the missing pieces around that. 

Certainly this will reduce the DM's need for prep at least as much as what the players bring to the table.....maybe some NPCs, factions, locations, or connections to existing ones. It also gives the DM very clear cues about what the players would like for play to be about, which can help when it comes time to mine for ideas for conflict or adventures. Many of the "adventures" in my 5E game largely write themselves because the players have an agenda other than the potential agendas I sprinkle into play.

I agree that this stuff can take time to get comfortable with. But the earlier people begin, the earlier they'll get the hang of it.



Lanefan said:


> There's some other things one can do also, but they don't so much reduce overall work as move a lot of it to a more convenient time - that being, before play ever begins.
> 
> My favourite among such things these days is to, long before session 0, have your setting's history (ancient and recent), pantheons, and local geography pretty much nailed down.  That way, once you start running the game you can in effect riff off yourself, in full confidence that everything will remain consistent.  The best part once play begins: the hard work is already done!
> 
> ...




Two things on this. I think that using a pre-established setting can indeed cut out a lot of work on the part of the GM. It may also serve as a hook for the players because they may already have an understanding of the setting and possibly strong interest in it, too. This is a big part of why my 5E campaign takes place in the D&D multiverse. It allows us to use any and all published bits, and a lot of the big players are known NPCs that the players already have an interest in.....Eclavdra and Iggwilv and Snurre and Mephistopheles and Graz'zt and Shemeska and so on. All of this gives me a plethora of material that I can mine for ideas, and the same for my players. 

Having said that, I think that telling a new GM that they need to construct an entire world with all these details predetermined is one of the things that perpetuates the idea that it's so difficult to GM. There's no reason that this stuff can't be built as it's needed. Start with a town or city and the surrounding region. Add members of the pantheon as needed. And so on. 

There's nothing wrong with a Dm who's experienced and has a clear idea of a setting or world that he wants to craft for his group. But I don't think it's good advice for new GMs. It's too daunting. And the chance that they'll do it all so well that they'll actually get to use it all? Seems pretty slim.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 28, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Sadras said:


> I would probably also add some constraints on these 5 PCs for setting purposes (race and such like), but also to deter the metagame PCs having an armourer, an alchemist guy, a sage guy, a bowyer/fletcher, a gem guy...etc. I do not mind a contact or two, but it isn't necessary to turn every roleplaying opportunity into muchkinism. I'd prefer variety - a possible love interest, a happy drunk, a mischievous street urchin, a newly married couple, an idealistic acolyte, a recent widow, out-of-luck merchant, a pushy flower vendor, a musical duo, a retired falconer, a generous aristocrat, a lascivious innkeeper, a miserable midwife, bookworm-y town guard, an alcoholic sage, a roguish tradesman, a droll linguist, a burly dressmaker...etc
> 
> I might have been unclear, maybe - I said I won't have trouble working them in.




I think you're far better off asking them to create mostly the latter types that you mention....characters that they care about in some way, more so than the former, characters who can give them stuff. Nothing wrong with a blacksmith being an acquaintance of the fighter, but their relationship should likely mean more than just "that's the guy I sell weapons to, and who repairs my armor."

You have a few of these types of characters, and then leverage them in an organic way rather than just as weak spots to threaten the PC, and it can be a strong thing in play. 

If you can somehow connect mechanics to it as an incentive....using the Inspiration mechanic or something similar...then that may further enhance it.



Fenris-77 said:


> @Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.
> 
> @pemerton - I agree completely about Burning Wheel and the general difficulty of porting over elements form indie games to D&D. I do think it's possible, and useful, but it's work. The hack of BitD flashbacks for 5e is a great example of how it can be done well.




My group is trying something a little different with Inspiration. Essentially, we start with a pool of d20s equal to the number of players. Any player can use one of he d20s at any time to give advantage on a roll. Also, they can spend 2d20 to reroll after the fact. Finally, they can spend a d20 to use a Flashback or similar to establish some element that previously was unknown. 

They replenish spent d20s by using their Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in meaningful ways in play.

The pool of d20s is lifted/tweaked from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures Momentum, and the Flashback is straight out of Blades. 

It's been an enjoyable change that I feel incorporates Inspiration more immediately instead of having it be a forgotten element of the game.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> My group is trying something a little different with Inspiration. Essentially, we start with a pool of d20s equal to the number of players. Any player can use one of he d20s at any time to give advantage on a roll. Also, they can spend 2d20 to reroll after the fact. Finally, they can spend a d20 to use a Flashback or similar to establish some element that previously was unknown.
> 
> They replenish spent d20s by using their Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in meaningful ways in play.
> 
> ...



That's a cool system. Nice and simple but it does what you want it to. I like that you have a couple of different mechanical incentives tied to the same system. I also really like that it's a group pool, rather than individual pools.

Do you allow a single d20 to be used on a roll that already has advantage, sort of like Elvish accuracy? That would be cool too.

I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I recall back in the day, when I first started trying to integrate improvisation into my game (as opposed to earlier, when I could sometimes admittedly by a bit of a railroader). My group from then was remarking what a great game I had run, and I confessed to them that it had been all off the cuff. You could literally watch the expressions sour on their faces. The campaign basically crashed and burned after that. I had shown them what was behind the curtain, and it ruined the experience for them.
> 
> So nowadays, while I rely heavily on improv, I don't tell them that. It might not ruin the game for all of them, but it might for some. Which, frankly, would be counterproductive. They're certainly aware that I sometimes need to improve, but I don't tell them what or to what extent.




I've seen similar things happen. I also, luckily, had the exact opposite happen. Due to a combination of circumstances, I had to largely run an entire session entirely on the fly, relying only on what had happened in previous sessions to help shape the scenario. It went really well, and one of my players said something like that to me afterward, and asked how much time it had taken to "write that adventure". I told him I made it all up on the fly, and he was even more impressed. This player was also a Gm pretty often, so that likely helped him appreciate it. 

I think this reaction you've described is a bit part of what I perceive as the problem. I don't want to "blame" your players, but that kind of reaction is counter productive. "Here's something we liked, we find out how it worked, and we decide we don't like it"....that's kind of hard to get around. Obviously, a big part of this is setting expectations, so if this was a huge departure from what they expect, that explains it a bit, but still.....I don't know anyone who doesn't point out that being able to improvise is a preferred GM skill. 

So they just punished a positive gaming experience. I see similar examples offered in discussion.....how players judge GMs harshly for whatever reason. Again, something that serves as a barrier to new GMs.

I play with the same longstanding group, so by now they're very used to my general approach. It's shifted over time, and continues to, but we talk about it, and I make sure that expectations are clear. 



Nagol said:


> More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.
> 
> Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.




I don't think that needs to be the case. I don't know if there's any scenario requiring tactics that only works for pre-planned challenges. I mean, actual tactics are usually deployed throughout an evolving scenario, right? So I don't see how a GM writing a DC ahead of time versus determing the DC on a fly is all that functionally different. 

Obviously, my example of the DC is simple. I'm sure you have something else in mind. Why do you think this might be significant? Is it perception alone, or do you think there may be a more meaningful difference?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> <snip>
> 
> I don't think that needs to be the case. I don't know if there's any scenario requiring tactics that only works for pre-planned challenges. I mean, actual tactics are usually deployed throughout an evolving scenario, right? So I don't see how a GM writing a DC ahead of time versus determing the DC on a fly is all that functionally different.
> 
> Obviously, my example of the DC is simple. I'm sure you have something else in mind. Why do you think this might be significant? Is it perception alone, or do you think there may be a more meaningful difference?




I expect it's a combination of perception and an assessment / understanding that the ad hoc nature of the improv allows the GM to adjust the threat level on the fly as opposed to the players managing to "solve" a particularly tough scenario.

So if you feel particularly clever because of certain strategems that actually ended up working and let you bypass what appears to be half or more of the defenders in what you thought was a scenario pitting your party's abilities against a static situation then discover it wasn't, you feel cheated.  What appears to have been a success based on brilliant (and typically unorthodox) strategy could just have been handed to you.  Note the 'could'.  Players can never know for sure, but the suspicion is enough to dull the pleasure.

The narrative remains the same, but the value of the player's input to its success is called into question.

_edit_

The type of player I'm talking about is like The Tactician in Roblin Laws' Types of Gamers:

*The Tactician* is probably a military buff, who wants chances to think his way through complex, realistic problems, usually those of the battlefield. He wants the rules, and your interpretation of them, to jibe with reality as he knows it, or at least to portray an internally consistent, logical world in which the quality of his choices is the biggest determining factor in his success or failure. He may view issues of characterization as a distraction. He becomes annoyed when other players do things which fit their PCs' personalities, but are tactically unsound. To satisfy him, you must provide challenging yet logical obstacles for his character to overcome.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> That's a cool system. Nice and simple but it does what you want it to. I like that you have a couple of different mechanical incentives tied to the same system. I also really like that it's a group pool, rather than individual pools.
> 
> Do you allow a single d20 to be used on a roll that already has advantage, sort of like Elvish accuracy? That would be cool too.
> 
> I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.




I'm just now (finally) reading Fate. I've been meaning to for some time, and last week someone pointed out that it was PWYW on Drivethru, so I grabbed a copy. I don't know if my group will have any time to actually play Fate soon, but I want to read it and learn the system. 

I definitely intend to tweak the Inspiration system we have accordingly, very much like what you're saying. 

It works because it promotes teamwork. We've also adopted a different Initiative system, and these two things seem to have really pushed the teamwork angle that I feel was a bit lacking. It's working so far, but I do hope to use the Fate concept of compels to make how they replenish their pool a bit more meaningful. 

Oh, and yeah, I've been letting them use a d20 from the pool to add a third die to a roll where the PC already has advantage.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I expect it's a combination of perception and an assessment / understanding that the ad hoc nature of the improv allows the GM to adjust the threat level on the fly as opposed to the players managing to "solve" a particularly tough scenario.
> 
> So if you feel particularly clever because of certain strategems that actually ended up working and let you bypass what appears to be half or more of the defenders in what you thought was a scenario pitting your party's abilities against a static situation then discover it wasn't, you feel cheated.  What appears to have been a success based on brilliant (and typically unorthodox) strategy could just have been handed to you.  Note the 'could'.  Players can never know for sure, but the suspicion is enough to dull the pleasure.
> 
> The narrative remains the same, but the value of the player's input to its success is called into question.




Okay, thank you for clarifying. That makes sense, and I agree with you. 

I think that what you have to do as a GM, if you're employing a more improv style, is to not undermine such a clever action on the part of the PCs. 

So that, in a written adventure, the PCs use the clever move to avoid 8 enemies, leaving them with only 4 to fight, but in an improv adventure you maybe don't have hard and fast numbers, but you rule accordingly. 

In some ways, I think it allows for even more reward of such clever play. It will depend on how it's handled by the GM. 

But I can see how it can be perceived to be "less meaningful" based on player expectations.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm just now (finally) reading Fate. I've been meaning to for some time, and last week someone pointed out that it was PWYW on Drivethru, so I grabbed a copy. I don't know if my group will have any time to actually play Fate soon, but I want to read it and learn the system.
> 
> I definitely intend to tweak the Inspiration system we have accordingly, very much like what you're saying.
> 
> ...



There are lots of different FATE based games that use the base mechanics in all sorts of ways. I'd recommend browsing through more than just the basic rules if you have the chance. Houses of the Blooded and the Dresden Files are both great games, and very different. If you aren't sure where to get reasonably priced reading material hit me up with a PM.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Nagol said:


> ...
> 
> It is the in-session pressure and responsibility that keeps people out of the DM's chair.  It is the fear of scrutiny, being the centre of attention, feeling that you have become responsible for the others' enjoyment. * It is where public speaking meets babysitting and gets run over by hosting a party. * All you wanted to do is have fun with some friends and now you have to do this _work_.  Let Mikey do it.  He's done it before.  Playing is fun.
> 
> ...



Unrelated to anything else, the bolded bit is the best line I've seen all day!


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,



How is it the players' fault for reasonably assuming the setting they're operating in is a little more solidly constructed than a house of cards?

That said, pretty much everyone knows a DM has to wing it now and then and so the ask is merely that the DM be consistent in said wingings - if the invented-on-the-fly castle has three floors today it'll have three floors when we come back tomorrow - and thus maintain the setting's integrity even while making stuff up on the fly.

Where I would blame the players here is in how they reacted to learning it was all made up on the fly, after congratulating the DM on how well that session went.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Using prepared material is certainly one of the ways to save prep time. However, you generally still have to read through the material, and those big books can take a lot of time to read. I ran Tomb of Annihilation about a year ago as part of my 5E campaign, and I found it difficult for a number of reasons. I've since decided to only run my own material, and I am finding it far more easy.
> 
> But, I've also been DMing for a long time. I think for those starting out, using prepared material is a good idea. Although even that won't apply to all (I think @prabe mentioned that he can't make sense of the APs). I think that smaller bite size chunks are far more helpful to newer DMs. A few pages and a map, and not a whole lot more. I think the Adventurer's League stuff may be more in line with what's useful to a new DM, and certainly smaller adventures that can be found on the DMs Guild.



Largely agreed - says he, whose first six DMed adventures back in the day were all homebrew.  (certainly a trial-by-fire on how not to design adventures!)



> But when it comes to getting PCs' backstories to "fit the setting", I think it's useful to kind of look at it another way. What if the setting fit the PCs' backstories? Sure, you may have a general setting idea such as "we're going to play Dark Sun at the time of the fall of Kalak" as @pemerton used as an example. But what if that's step 1, step 2 is the players make their characters and related concepts (whether backstory, related NPCs, kickers, or some mix of all), and then step 3 is that the DM fleshes out the other details?



If I did it this way I'd need to know who my players were going to be, and they'd need to know their PCs, weeks or even months before campaign start.

And given as my games tend to be rather lethal at low levels... 



> Two things on this. I think that using a pre-established setting can indeed cut out a lot of work on the part of the GM. It may also serve as a hook for the players because they may already have an understanding of the setting and possibly strong interest in it, too. This is a big part of why my 5E campaign takes place in the D&D multiverse. It allows us to use any and all published bits, and a lot of the big players are known NPCs that the players already have an interest in.....Eclavdra and Iggwilv and Snurre and Mephistopheles and Graz'zt and Shemeska and so on. All of this gives me a plethora of material that I can mine for ideas, and the same for my players.



If the new GM is also running new players, you're absolutely right.

But if the players are experienced you risk hitting a canon lawyer, which no GM needs be they new or otherwise.



> Having said that, I think that telling a new GM that they need to construct an entire world with all these details predetermined is one of the things that perpetuates the idea that it's so difficult to GM. There's no reason that this stuff can't be built as it's needed. Start with a town or city and the surrounding region. Add members of the pantheon as needed. And so on.



Again agreed; but only to a point.

The pantheons at least need to be fully designed before roll-up so players know what their options are should one or more want to roll up a Cleric.  Much of the rest can, as you say, be done as required; though I'd advise even a new GM to try and stay a step or two ahead of things if possible.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 28, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Largely agreed - says he, whose first six DMed adventures back in the day were all homebrew.  (certainly a trial-by-fire on how not to design adventures!)




Well there's something to be said about necessity. Some kids learn to swim by falling in the pool.



Lanefan said:


> If I did it this way I'd need to know who my players were going to be, and they'd need to know their PCs, weeks or even months before campaign start.




Do you not typically know who's gonna play? I know that's common with public play and with online games, but I always got the impression from your posts that you have a dedicated group. Is that not the case?

As for weeks or months....I don't think I'd agree you _need_ that much time. You might prefer it, sure, but I can't see how it's needed.



Lanefan said:


> And given as my games tend to be rather lethal at low levels...




That can be an obstacle, I suppose. I always found that killing a first or second level character didn't pack that much of a punch since the player isn't as invested in them as they are after a couple more levels, at least. 

However, we had a campaign we played where this was not an issue because we collectively created a roster of NPCs and possible PCs to populate the setting. We had 4 players, and once they selected their PCs, the others became additional NPCs and/or cohorts that helped the party a bit as needed. If a character died, there were still several replacements already at hand, and they had an actual place in the ongoing story already. It worked out really well.



Lanefan said:


> If the new GM is also running new players, you're absolutely right.
> 
> But if the players are experienced you risk hitting a canon lawyer, which no GM needs be they new or otherwise.




That's more a case of annoying behavior than anything else, and can hopefully be curbed right at the start with something like "this is not THE Marvel Universe, this is OUR Marvel Universe" and then just periodically reminding everyone of that as you play.



Lanefan said:


> Again agreed; but only to a point.
> 
> The pantheons at least need to be fully designed before roll-up so players know what their options are should one or more want to roll up a Cleric.  Much of the rest can, as you say, be done as required; though I'd advise even a new GM to try and stay a step or two ahead of things if possible.




Again, I don't see this as a need so much as a preference. 

Yes, having a pantheon gives players some options up front. But, not having it done up front may allow the player to add to the world by crafting their own deity for their cleric PC. This goes to both the point about allowing the players to craft world elements to make the more invested in play, and also on reducing some of the workload of the GM. 

Yeah, a lot of these things have traditionally all been decided ahead of play. That's how most of us learned.....we looked at a list in the book, and we picked something that sounded cool, or that fit our character. 

But that's not how it must be done.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 29, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Hopefully? So what if they aren't interested (or are simply too busy), and they just mail it in? Or they try their best but the result is rather flavorless? Doesn't that just create more work for the DM?




No different than if the DM is just mailing it in.   It happens.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 29, 2020)

aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.
> 
> I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.
> 
> Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.




No DM, no game. 

I know that many will say that also no players no game, but it's always a lot easier to find someone who wants to try playing rather someone who wants to try DMing, and everyone understands why. So yes, it is the most important person. It is also the person who will take a lot more responsibilities and dedicate a lot more time to make everyone enjoy the game, not just herself, so I see no reason why people should actually try find a way to prove she's less important.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 29, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think you're far better off asking them to create mostly the latter types that you mention....characters that they care about in some way, more so than the former, characters who can give them stuff. Nothing wrong with a blacksmith being an acquaintance of the fighter, but their relationship should likely mean more than just "that's the guy I sell weapons to, and who repairs my armor."
> 
> You have a few of these types of characters, and then leverage them in an organic way rather than just as weak spots to threaten the PC, and it can be a strong thing in play.




Thanks. After giving this some thought, I have taken your advice on this - sent them an email this morning providing a host of examples including odds balls such as a litter of kittens, a stray dog or an annoying crow so they do not feel boxed in to the usual.
3 of the 4 players are already quite taken by the idea - the 4th is newbie so I suspect she might feel a little overwhelmed with this prospect, but we'll see.



> If you can somehow connect mechanics to it as an incentive....using the Inspiration mechanic or something similar...then that may further enhance it.




Yeah, I was thinking along these lines (Inspiration, additional/changes to TIBF, downtime benefits or the like).


----------



## Sadras (Feb 29, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.




I have done just that for 2 sessions (when I remembered) and it works well with the right players and if as DM you keep checking their IBF to see how you can incorporate it. The Inspiration Point or d20 in this case needs to be valuable - not easily earned otherwise your compels could fall flat.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 29, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> So what if they aren't interested (or are simply too busy), and they just mail it in? Or they try their best but the result is rather flavorless? Doesn't that just create more work for the DM?




If they are too busy, well that is on them. I have asked my players to provide me (via email) these NPCs - I seriously doubt they will put the time and effort to create flavourless NPCs. Unlike Hussar I do think it might require some more work for the DM, but I'm suspecting the return to be greater.
I have only received positive feedback from my group and I don't expect my players to be unique.



> I've no doubt that with the right group it could work (one that *appreciates* things like *player ownership over exploration and surprise*, for example)...(snip)...My group favors discovery in RPGs.




I do not think it has to be an _over_ scenario. I think a group or player is able to appreciate both aspects of the roleplaying game.



> But it certainly won't work for every group, including mine.




You certainly know your group best so I'm not going to argue that point but you can only but try and see how they respond. The way I pitched it to mine in terms of their workload - was that they may create up to 5 NPCs (so 0 and 1 is good too) and they can provide me 2-5 lines for each NPC providing any, a combination or all of the following:
basic description, character role within the city, where/how you met and your current state with each other.

EDIT: I obviously also provided a rationale for why I pitched this idea to them.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Feb 29, 2020)

I would like to see this put to a vote.  Im really just curious which one most people think between the three most basic options.  Those being 1.  Yes 2.  No 3.  Neither particularly.  Someone should embed a poll.  That would be cool.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 29, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> That sounds like you found out a clear incompatibility between you and those players.  I'm not sure I see the utility in hiding, though.  If a player in my game is going to be so disappointed I didn't script something they enjoyed that they stop enjoying it, it sounds better we find that out quickly and find more compatible games.  That goes in the other direction as well.





Fenris-77 said:


> That's on your players. If they don't understand what happens behind the curtain they probably shouldn't judge. Managing expectations is a key component of session 0, but in this case I think the issue isn't you. It the players assuming that you have hard plans for any and all possible decisions they might make, which is, of course, a ridiculous notion when given even cursory thought,



That's not my takeaway at all. I'll grant that there was an incompatibility between my revealing the fact and their preferences. However, the group itself was compatible and working great until that point. There was no issue with improvisation per se. Most people grasp on at least some level that a GM needs to improvise at least some of the time.

I believe the issue was that once I showed them the illusory nature of that session (which was pretty much entirely improvised), they felt it invalidated all of their choices.

Let me put it another way. There are GMs who fudge rolls. However, assuming you were that type of GM, would you honestly tell the player that the only reason their character survived to land the killing blow against the BBEG is because when you rolled a nat 20 against them you declared it a miss? Why would you? All you're doing is invalidating a cool moment they had assumed was earned by pointing out that you handed it to them.

Obviously, my situation back then was less cut and dry, but it was (I believe) similar in that sense. Besides, it wasn't as though the players were rude about it. They didn't throw a fit or anything crazy. I could simply tell from their body language that they were unhappy. And they didn't seem to enjoy the campaign as much after that.

It was a mismatch of expectations, but one that I could have easily remedied by keeping my mouth shut, had I known at that time that player preferences were a thing. Back then I pretty much just ran the game that I wanted to play in, and since I thought improvisation was awesome, I figured they would too.


hawkeyefan said:


> I've seen similar things happen. I also, luckily, had the exact opposite happen. Due to a combination of circumstances, I had to largely run an entire session entirely on the fly, relying only on what had happened in previous sessions to help shape the scenario. It went really well, and one of my players said something like that to me afterward, and asked how much time it had taken to "write that adventure". I told him I made it all up on the fly, and he was even more impressed. This player was also a Gm pretty often, so that likely helped him appreciate it.
> 
> I think this reaction you've described is a bit part of what I perceive as the problem. I don't want to "blame" your players, but that kind of reaction is counter productive. "Here's something we liked, we find out how it worked, and we decide we don't like it"....that's kind of hard to get around. Obviously, a big part of this is setting expectations, so if this was a huge departure from what they expect, that explains it a bit, but still.....I don't know anyone who doesn't point out that being able to improvise is a preferred GM skill.
> 
> ...



They didn't punish me, except indirectly and unintentionally. I made a misstep. I never should have revealed to those players what was behind the curtain. Had I told them that some minor NPC was made up on the spot, I think it would have been fine. But revealing to them that the entire world that their characters inhabited (at least for that session) was effectively illusory was too much. Hindsight is 20/20.

I honestly don't think the players deserve any blame. They didn't decide anything, except perhaps at a subconscious level. Had I known about player preferences at the time, I could have avoided the issue entirely by not telling them that the session had been improvised.

It's like if you buy a carton of delicious chocolate fudge ice cream. Then, when you rip off the lid, you realize that it's actually vanilla with chocolate sprinkles. Assuming that you wanted chocolate and not vanilla, you're going to be understandably disappointed. You might eat some anyway, but it's not unlikely that the carton is going to sit unfinished in the back of your freezer until you end up tossing it. You aren't punishing the ice cream. You thought it was a flavor you enjoyed when you bought it, but it turned out to not be what you thought it was. (Obviously, for the analogy to fully work for my situation, I would need to be a powerful illusionist who was able to ensorcel the vanilla chocolate sprinkle into looking and tasting like chocolate fudge, but I think you get the idea.)




Hussar said:


> No different than if the DM is just mailing it in.   It happens.



The DM mailing it in might make for an unfun session, but I don't see how it makes more work for the DM. If anything, that's a great way to reduce the DM's workload (provided you don't actually care whether the table enjoys themselves).


Sadras said:


> If they are too busy, well that is on them. I have asked my players to provide me (via email) these NPCs - I seriously doubt they will put the time and effort to create flavourless NPCs. Unlike Hussar I do think it might require some more work for the DM, but I'm suspecting the return to be greater.
> I have only received positive feedback from my group and I don't expect my players to be unique.
> 
> 
> ...



Your approach is different from the one Hussar pitched. Unless I misunderstood something, the original idea was like the illusionist from the prince framing scenario. Essentially telling the player something to the effect of, "The prince is being framed, so I'd like you to stat me up the 7th level illusionist behind that plot".

Your approach I can totally get behind. I agree that it doesn't save the DM work, but I can see the player investment being worth it. I would totally allow that IMC (and I actually ask for that sort of thing in their backgrounds). In this case you're not asking them to stat up some random NPC who may or may not play a pivotal role in the scenario. You're asking them to give you NPCs with whom their characters have a pre-existing relationship. It'll take some work to digest and incorporate, but in this case the player has no need to separate their character knowledge from their player knowledge, because their character knows the NPC.

I don't even have a problem fundamentally with doing things the way Hussar proposed, I'm just saying it's not a good fit for my group, and that I'm unconvinced that it would appreciably reduce the DM's workload.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 29, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> The pantheons at least need to be fully designed before roll-up so players know what their options are should one or more want to roll up a Cleric.





hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, having a pantheon gives players some options up front. But, not having it done up front may allow the player to add to the world by crafting their own deity for their cleric PC. This goes to both the point about allowing the players to craft world elements to make the more invested in play, and also on reducing some of the workload of the GM.



What hawkeyefan said. Players making up their own gods seems one of the easier things to accommodate in a typical Conan-esque fantasy world.


----------



## prabe (Feb 29, 2020)

pemerton said:


> What hawkeyefan said. Players making up their own gods seems one of the easier things to accommodate in a typical Conan-esque fantasy world.




Or doing what I did, and declaring there aren't gawds in the setting (mainly because I don't like the way that TRPGs deal with deities). Figuring out how to wave my hands the right way so clerics, et al., still work took a little thought, but I'm OK with that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 1, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I often forget that not everyone has the same understandings that I do, and for that, I apologize.



You've mistaken quotation marks being used to actually quote something for... I'm not sure what.  I certainly didn't misuse the term, and I very much understood how you used it.  You've used it poorly.



> But- 1) that is not what was said.



It was the extended position.  If D&D being the dominant game is indicative of revealed position, then the other, less preferred games being niche is a direct result.  I don't know how you can make the points you've made using reveal preference and avoid this.  If you're arguing you didn't specifically say this, then, sure, you didn't specifically say this.



> 2) Revealed preference is a specific term used in economics that I often use (h/t Paul Samuelson). I am not using it all willy-nilly. At its core, it is the rather simple observation that consumer preferences are revealed by their purchases.



Confounding factors is also a term used in economics.



> That's why I made the joke ealier-
> 
> _Put another way, "I think vegetables are great," said the guy, munching on another bag of Cheetos. _




This doesn't show anything at all -- it's a very poor example and doesn't show revealed preference at all.  It shows that someone thinks vegetables are great while eating something else.  They may like Cheetos as much as vegetables. They may be hungry and vegetables aren't available.  We don't know.  And this problem translates to your assumption of revealed preference for D&D -- it's borne up solely by unspoken assumptions and can't be conclusively determined by the data.



> The tension is between stated preference ("I think vegetables are great") and revealed preference (the purchase and consumption of Cheetos). .... man, jokes, like frogs, do not do well when dissected.



Those things aren't at odds, though, so it fails at more than being a joke.



> Later, when you said the following:
> _All that can be said is that the large majority of RPG players play 5e edition*. That doesn't tell us much else as to why, or even if those D&D counts include also playing ither games. _
> 
> I replied-
> ...



No, because the "revealed preference' here is your guess -- your bias, your assumption, your thinking -- dressed up in a fancy term.  Your 'joke' here is about as interesting and useful as your previous one -- it's a pithy sounding set of words that don't actually work to do what you want them to.  



> Now, not to get to far down the wormhole (as unfortunately happened in a discussion about opportunity cost), but revealed preferences (RP) are often contrasted with stated preferences (SP), as in my Cheetos joke. More importantly, looking at RP alone can help you avoid worrying about normative discussions regarding quality.
> 
> Looked at another way:
> People might have an SP of one thing (what they think people might want to hear, or what they will tell people they want, when they don't have to make a choice between competing alterantives; the second issue is one that @Nagol referenced and can be a continuing issue when conducting surveys or focus groups and people provide SP).
> ...



Again, you haven't done the work here, just assumed something and attached a fancy term to your assumption to lend it credence past it's value.  D&D is the market leader by more than a fair margin, granted.  It's game people like, granted.  Is this indicative of reveal preference? 

Maybe.  But, if you recall my mention of confounders, we can't say for certain.  Let's talk about those.  A lot of people here, on ENW, seem to harbor a great deal of unawareness of different ways to play D&D.  And that's in the self-selected group that spends time on the internet in a forum that talks about games, ie, a cohort more likely than the uninterested in having exposure to games.  Further, there's quite often long thread arguments on D&D on how it actually works at a fundamental level.  So, whatever D&D is, it's at best a collection of disparate preferences using the same ruleset.  And, that's interesting -- we argue quite often about what D&D is, and disagree, so there's already some fracture to the theory that playing D&D shows some kind of revealed preference for something, as the different kinds of games played show that what's actually happening is people are playing related games, not the same game.  And that shows that there's a bunch of different preferences under the D&D tent.  D&D handles this by 1) being GM directed -- what the GM says goes so the GM chooses the preference set in a game and collects players that are amenable to those preferences and 2) building the concept of 1 into the rules.  This is the power of Rule Zero to distort the preference set -- D&D allows GMs to dictate different games according to their preferences and not according to the ruleset, thereby creating a broader appeal at the cost of unification.  

So, D&D is actually a multitude of games under an umbrella.  Are they games that are uniquely D&D, then, can we can the umbrella is the revealed preference?  I don't think so.  There are too many table variants to D&D to call them really uniquely D&D.  And, one of the more common statements in regards to this is to point out to GMs asking how to do type of play by suggesting other systems that do it better.  This is, also often, rejected because people find value in staying under the D&D umbrella.  That, then, starts to get at a root confounder -- that D&D is popular because people are unwilling to abandon playing the popular game.  You see this on this board time and again -- someone is suggesting a radical rebuild of the D&D engine but wants to promote it as D&D to get players, even if the rebuild no longer looks anything like D&D.  

And, then there's the popularity argument being that most people are going to be introduced to gaming through D&D.  Even now, one of the largest 'infection' vectors D&D has is streamed games.  These aren't popular because they're D&D, but because of the players involved and the story told.  Matt Mercer, for instance, is more than willing to ignore the rules for drama that sells.  And, that's good, he should do this, because his motivation isn't preservation of D&D, or even selling D&D, but selling his videos.  So, if most people are introduced through D&D because it's popular, that reinforces it's popularity -- it's a well known loop.  This kind of loop shorts out preference by market pressure, peer pressure, and ignorance of other options.

And that last, ignorance of other options, is pretty big.  People who have had fun doing a thing are very resistant to the suggestion that they do some other thing to have fun.  Why?  Why bother?  And, that means that they're not going to spend much time learning about other things they could do to have fun.  Even if presented with those options, the opportunity cost is high -- I could do this thing I like or try this other thing and maybe not like it.  This driver can be seen here at ENW, when other games are discussed they often get little response unless an argument about the game starts -- which is fairly common.  And, many of those arguments are due to people either not letting go ingrained D&Disms or insisting that games that don't do D&Disms are somehow flawed.  Like, maybe, in this thread, where other games are dismissed because they  aren't popular.  

Heck, this thread is pretty extra special in that regard, as your argument is more that techniques originating from non-D&D games should be dismissed because they aren't from D&D, and since most people play D&D and not those games, they clearly prefer the D&D way of doing things.  Except, there isn't a D&D way outside of a broad umbrella which these things actually fit under.  So, in reality, your entire argument is an example of someone using technical jargon borrowed from other fields to define the argument in a way that their preferences are supported and others are dismissed.  The irony to this is that you've started a thread complaining about this very thing. 

tl;dr:  You're making a bad argument abusing technical terms from other fields so you can validate your assumptions and dismiss other arguments.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> This doesn't show anything at all -- it's a very poor example and doesn't show revealed preference at all.  It shows that someone thinks vegetables are great while eating something else.  They may like Cheetos as much as vegetables. They may be hungry and vegetables aren't available.  We don't know.  And this problem translates to your assumption of revealed preference for D&D -- it's borne up solely by unspoken assumptions and can't be conclusively determined by the data.



Given what @lowkey13 is trying to say to you, I think we can safely assume that the person in question has vegetables available.  Given equal opportunity, a statement about how they like vegetables while eating the cheetos, reveals a greater preference for cheetos.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Given what @lowkey13 is trying to say to you, I think we can safely assume that the person in question has vegetables available.  Given equal opportunity, a statement about how they like vegetables while eating the cheetos, reveals a greater preference for cheetos.



So, we have to draw all possible positive assumptions to save @lowkey13's point?  That would be ironic, given that he's more that willing to assume negative things to dismiss other posters, even in the face of repeated attempts to correct course in polite ways.  I don't see why we need to treat lowkey with the kids gloves and assume things so his points have some merit when he can't be bothered.

But, even taken with your assumptions, the "revealed preference" for Cheetos says nothing at all about the statement on vegetables being false.  And, as this "joke" was a lead in to the D&D popularity argument, and those assumptions you've made don't follow that transition, then even if you can imagine a way for the "joke" to be a useful example of reveal preference, it's still useless in the D&D context.  This is an example of making one argument using a logical chain and then rapidly switching to a different case and trying to use the same chain of logic.  It's the setup to a bait and switch, or a motte and bailey style of argument.  Saving the motte argument through helpful assumption making doesn't help the bailey argument.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 1, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 1, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I think it would be good to back to the point where you don’t engage with me, and I don’t engage with you. Solved a LOT of problems, apparently.
> 
> Until such time as they fix the ignore system we will just have to do it the old fashioned way.
> 
> Thanks.



I'm not sure which of my problems this solves. but I can see the upside for you.  Have at it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 1, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 1, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> That’s true. I mean, when you go for the triple crown of arrogant, thoughtless and humorless, it is unsurprising when self-reflection never follows.
> 
> At leas I’m only cursed with one of the three. Bye.




Whereas, I think you're a perfectly fine poster whose one poor quality (in my opinion) is a strange predilection towards construing others as acting in bad faith when they disagree with you.

Edit:  huh, not sure your edit actually improved things.  I had hit the reply earlier but failed to successfully hit post so I caught the original.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2020)

"Arrogant, thoughtless, and humourless" - I've built the personalities of some great characters around less than this! 

This character's name would of course have to be Atah.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, we have to draw all possible positive assumptions to save @lowkey13's point?




No.  Just the incredibly obvious, in your face ones.  If a point would make no sense without that incredibly obvious assumption, you should go ahead and make it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No.  Just the incredibly obvious, in your face ones.  If a point would make no sense without that incredibly obvious assumption, you should go ahead and make it.



A trait that I would hope everyone does. And, yes, I could do that, but, like I posted in your last post, it still doesn't carry to his larger point as he intended it to.  So, because it doesn't carry, it was worth showing how the assumption necessary aren't in place so that I could carry that through and show how the assumptions necessary for the larger point are also missing -- the larger point being how D&D being popular is a revealed preference.  There, the assumptions necessary aren't assumable unless you're also making large assumptions about people that aren't warranted.

You can continue to defend lowkey as if he cannot do so (he clearly chooses not to, and that's his prerogative) but you're standing on a very narrow point that's only relevant if you ignore the rest of that post.  As I noted, even if we do as you suggest, it doesn't help the larger point.  If it aids you, I'll concede that you can make assumptions to defend the "joke" about the Cheetos.  It doesn't change anything else in my post and it's still worthwhile to list out the assumptions necessary to salvage it.  Because, in doing so, we see how many assumptions are necessary to support the D&D "revealed preferences" that the "joke" lead up to and can examine how weak a number of those assumptions are.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> You can continue to defend lowkey as if he cannot do so...




You asked me a question.  I answered it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You asked me a question.  I answered it.



You started this side excursion, Max.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to blame me for where we are now when you've been a willing participant right up until it became a challenge.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> /snip
> 
> Your approach is different from the one Hussar pitched. Unless I misunderstood something, the original idea was like the illusionist from the prince framing scenario. Essentially telling the player something to the effect of, *"The prince is being framed, so I'd like you to stat me up the 7th level illusionist behind that plot".*
> 
> ...




Well, sure, if you frame it like that, then yeah, it's probably not going to work.  Why would you do that though?  Why not just ask for court NPC's and then use the ones that the players give you?  If one of the players gives you an illusionist, then you can run with the framed plot.  Or, even better, maybe the player gave you the DM the framed plot.  Which, honestly, is what I was thinking more than having such a rigid plot at the outset.  Obviously if we're going to place some of the game prep on the shoulders of the DM, the DM has to be willing to work with what is there.  

But, even then, thinking about it, what's wrong with, "The prince is being framed for killing someone.  I need you four players to give me four possible suspects."?  Wouldn't that be the best use of resources?  The DM then picks one, or adjusts and picks and then runs the adventure.  No one at the table actually knows who did it.  But, now you've got a nice mystery scenario where the players have some information already - although, again, nothing that they "know" is necessarily true.

Again, yes, if you frame things in terms that will automatically fail, then, of course this won't work. That's a bit obvious isn't it?  But, if you actually take the time to step back and think about how this can work, I've shown that it can be both a lot of fun for the table and a great way to take the load off the DM's shoulders.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Well, sure, if you frame it like that, then yeah, it's probably not going to work.  Why would you do that though?  Why not just ask for court NPC's and then use the ones that the players give you?  *If one of the players gives you an illusionist, then you can run with the framed plot.  Or, even better, maybe the player gave you the DM the framed plot. * Which, honestly, is what I was thinking more than having such a rigid plot at the outset.  Obviously if we're going to place some of the game prep on the shoulders of the DM, the DM has to be willing to work with what is there.




The bolded portion is exactly what is wrong with it.  Framing is dependent on being unknown and then discovered for its enjoyment.  If the players know about it ahead of time, it highly colors their thinking and how they play their PCs as the plot unfolds.



> But, even then, thinking about it, what's wrong with, "The prince is being framed for killing someone.  I need you four players to give me four possible suspects."?




What's wrong with it is that it destroys the plot and it's not worth running it at that point.



> Wouldn't that be the best use of resources?




Depends.  If you are running D&D, not it is not the best use of resources.  If you are running Joy Killer the RPG, then sure.  



> The DM then picks one, or adjusts and picks and then runs the adventure.  No one at the table actually knows who did it.  But, now you've got a nice mystery scenario where the players have some information already - although, again, nothing that they "know" is necessarily true.




What mystery?

DM: "The king calls you in.  He says the Prince was arrested for...

Player interrupting: "He was framed for killing someone!  Who did he supposedly kill?"

DM: "..."

There's no mystery.  The point of a framing scenario is that the players have to discover(or not) the frame and then do something about it(or not). 

The above DM/Player interaction is hyperbole and would not play out that way, but the point stands.  There is no point in the prince being framed.  The mystery in a frame under those conditions is only in which of the 4 suspects other than the prince did the murder, the same as if there was no frame and you had a murder with the same 4 suspects.  The "frame" need not be present and has no mystery.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> DM: "The king calls you in.  He says the Prince was arrested for...
> 
> Player interrupting: "He was framed for killing someone!  Who did he supposedly kill?"
> 
> DM: "..."




That right there is an example of Player Force. We are gonna need a whole new thread for that.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Sadras said:


> That right there is an example of Player Force. We are gonna need a whole new thread for that.



You seem to have missed this part.

"*The above DM/Player interaction is hyperbole and would not play out that way*, but the point stands. There is no point in the prince being framed. The mystery in a frame under those conditions is only in which of the 4 suspects other than the prince did the murder, the same as if there was no frame and you had a murder with the same 4 suspects. The "frame" need not be present and has no mystery."


----------



## Sadras (Mar 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You seem to have missed this part.
> 
> "*The above DM/Player interaction is hyperbole and would not play out that way*, but the point stands. There is no point in the prince being framed. The mystery in a frame under those conditions is only in which of the 4 suspects other than the prince did the murder, the same as if there was no frame and you had a murder with the same 4 suspects. The "frame" need not be present and has no mystery."




Max you ruined it, I was making a joke - nothing more


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Max you ruined it, I was making a joke - nothing more



It can be so hard to tell here!!


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

Sadras said:


> That right there is an example of Player Force. We are gonna need a whole new thread for that.




I've had similar things happen at my table.  In many campaigns,  I introduce Lion Rampant's Whimsy Cards which are player tools for applying force/authorship.  The players get creative with "Abrupt change of events", "Moral dilemma", and  "Unexpected Ally" a fair bit.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

The players knowing there was a frame on the crown prince would certainly have changed the tone of the adventure completely.  They wouldn't have told the king he was in fact guilty, for one.  They might even have caught the actual perpetrator for another.

That was an unexpected outcome that altered the environment and made them a long-term enemy.


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I've had similar things happen at my table.  In many campaigns,  I introduce Lion Rampant's Whimsy Cards which are player tools for applying force/authorship.  The players get creative with "Abrupt change of events", "Moral dilemma", and  "Unexpected Ally" a fair bit.




I've done it as a player, in a homebrew system that gave players authorship authority. I had a player do it when I was running something with that idea bolted on, and ended up with a short arc of stuff so creepy the PCs were brushing their teeth with their guns drawn. At this point I'm at least a little more reluctant about players having authorship on anything but the characters.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The bolded portion is exactly what is wrong with it.  Framing is dependent on being unknown and then discovered for its enjoyment.  If the players know about it ahead of time, it highly colors their thinking and how they play their PCs as the plot unfolds.
> 
> What's wrong with it is that it destroys the plot and it's not worth running it at that point.
> 
> ...




There's no reason that you can't set things up this way. If you have each player create a couple of NPCs who might be suspects for framing the prince, and then you also create a few of your own, then there's still plenty to discover. Who was killed? Who actually killed the person? Why did they frame the prince? 

Having played in a game that has included this kind of stuff, I can say that it absolutely can work just fine. In fact, I think it worked quite well because each of the NPCs in question was familiar to at least one player and PC.....so we had a certain amount of information to start with, much like the PCs would have had. The players were very invested, and it enhanced the game quite a bit. 

Sometimes, in a scenario like this, unless you're using long standing NPCs that the players are already familiar with, introducing a list of suspects for a mystery is very challenging. It's hard to give so many NPCs a unique voice and have them seem meaningfully different from the others. "Hey here's 10 NPCs.....figure out which one of them did it!" That can be really tough. Not impossible, of course, but tough. It helps if there's some prior connection, and actually creating the NPC can serve that purpose for a player.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 2, 2020)

The further you lean into player input into the fiction, the further you lean away from pre-plotted adventure. This is why most PbtA games specifically say not to plot anything before sessions - the fiction unfolds from player decisions. You can have threats and factions and all sorts of things, but you can't have "the Illusionist did it". The trick is finding middle ground if you don't want the full monty of PbtA.

Those NPCs in the thread above shouldn't be designed to fill a plot hole, they should be designed to fill the characters circle of people they know or know of. One of those NPCs certainly could turn out to be a bad guy, but you can't ask the characters to make the four suspects. The value of those NPCs lies in the ability of the PCs, should they find out that the prince is being framed, to have some idea who could possibly be responsible so they can take the reigns and start investigating without having to be force fed the clues.

Since this whole idea goes back to a post I made many pages ago, I'll elaborate. There's immense value in having players help write NPCs and factions. Most games that have this as a feature suggest that the NPCs in question for each character should be 'within their orbit' or people they would likely know. So the thief takes charge of writing up some stuff about the Thieves Guild or other outlaw types, A Cleric might write up some major figure in the settings religious hierarchy. There's another handle for those beyond class though, and that's background. So someone with the noble background could help write up court factions, for example. Beyond that there is family and acquaintances. Lots of room to maneuver.

Those NPCs haven't 'done anything' when they're created, they just flesh out groups and factions the character would reasonably know about. If there's intrigue or mystery afoot the players can tap those NPCs for information, or investigate them as suspects, or whatever. The key is not correlating the the player produced NPCs with GM determined plot action. In a D&D game you could design the intrigue after the NPCs, that's very cool, but you shouldn't do it before hand as it does take some of the mystery out of things.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> I've had similar things happen at my table.  In many campaigns,  I introduce Lion Rampant's Whimsy Cards which are player tools for applying force/authorship.  The players get creative with "Abrupt change of events", "Moral dilemma", and  "Unexpected Ally" a fair bit.




Interesting tools - will take a look into it.
For my own table, I love using new gaming tools in a limited way to surprise players. For instance I could easily incorporate this into one of the sidestories or when they're pursuing something related to their background. That way I'm not leaping headfirst into an entirely new gamestyle but dipping my toes in it and creating a novel experience for the players.

That is why I immediately jumped on Hussar's idea of the 5 NPCs - knew it would work for my table. It is not something I'm going to keep on allowing hence the hard 5 limit. Perhaps later on the in the game, I might reward a player with an additional creative slot, who knows 



			
				Maxperson said:
			
		

> It can be so hard to tell here!!




LOL! Yeah, trying to lighten the tone.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> I've done it as a player, in a homebrew system that gave players authorship authority. I had a player do it when I was running something with that idea bolted on, and ended up with a short arc of stuff so creepy the PCs were brushing their teeth with their guns drawn. At this point I'm at least a little more reluctant about players having authorship on anything but the characters.




One of my main hesitations revolve around indirect PvP.  In my experience, authorship devices will be used to exacerbate player conflict.  In two different Ars Magica campaigns, several PCs were lost because a player played a Whimsy Card to make a bad situation worse.  Whereas only one PC was saved by Whimsy Cards.  The rest of the uses were some mix of cosmetic, strategic, or interest signaling.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> One of my main hesitations revolve around indirect PvP.  In my experience, authorship devices will be used to exacerbate player conflict.  In two different Ars Magica campaigns, several PCs were lost because a player played a Whimsy Card to make a bad situation worse.  Whereas only PC was saved by Whimsy Cards.  The rest of the uses were some mix of cosmetic, strategic, or interest signaling.




The one I did as a player, the GM and I worked to make sure it didn't nerf another PC (though it sandbagged an NPC quite nicely). The one I was running, PvP wasn't on the table. That said, I can see how in come games/at some tables, PvP could be a problem, and player authorship should probably be strictly limited in those cases.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> You should know better by now. Never make jokes, because then you might be forced to explain them, or justify how realistic the joke is, or maybe ensure that you have properly covered all possible antecedents for the joke!
> 
> Olaf the Brave: Knock knock!
> 
> ...




And did the cow really moo or did it low?  The typical sound is really a low.  Moo is relegated to distress!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> And did the cow really moo or did it low?  The typical sound is really a low.  Moo is relegated to distress!



I think we should also discuss English language privilege here. Cows moo in English, but in other languages they might muu, boe, may, or even ungaa.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> The one I did as a player, the GM and I worked to make sure it didn't nerf another PC (though it sandbagged an NPC quite nicely). The one I was running, PvP wasn't on the table. That said, I can see how in come games/at some tables, PvP could be a problem, and player authorship should probably be strictly limited in those cases.




Some cases are completely obvious.  When the mage managed to actually escape a dangerous regio noting he needed to roll at least an 8 on his d10 and the next player over said "Really?  Do it again!" and played a Second Chance card -- what was happening was obvious.

But when the negotiation with the cannibal leader is going better than expected and a player tosses in "Personality Conflict", is he trying to spice up the encounter or kill the negotiator?


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I think we should also discuss English language privilege here. Cows moo in English, but in other languages they might muu, boe, may, or even ungaa.






lowkey13 said:


> Well, then cows would hardly ever moo, because dis here cow is usually disundressed! I mean, not to anthropomorphize cows, but most of them need assistance wearing clothes.
> 
> Did you heal about the poor mama cow who was separated from her baby cow in the herd? She was decaffeinated.




From Oxford:

*low*
verb

/ləʊ/


/ləʊ/
[intransitive] (literary)
Verb Forms

when a cow lows, it makes a deep sound

_edit_

Sneaky!  You changed your quibble between when I read it and managed to hit reply!  Sneaky!

_edit2_
Or maybe it's because I mis-clicked and quoted the wrong person originally?


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> From Oxford:
> 
> *low*
> verb
> ...




One might even call it a low-pitched sound.

I'll show myself out.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Heifer had them Apple Bottom Jeans (jeans)
> Boots with the fur (with the fur)
> The whole herd was lookin' at her
> Cow hit the floor (she hit the floor)
> ...




So is this a heifer or a cow? I'm not clear.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> So is this a heifer or a cow? I'm not clear.




Yes.  Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted.  All heifers are cows, but not all cows are heifers!  Obvious, one would think!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 2, 2020)




----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Also, I'm surprised you didn't see the problem with the completely on point Flo Rida reference.
> 
> That cow was distressed, wearing apple bottom jeans, not disundressed.
> 
> ...



Logic like that is unarguable!


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> No. I disagree one thousand percent with this assertion. Obviously and clearly, what you really mean is this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Since any percentage more than one hundred percent is meaningless, you clearly mean you disagree one hundred percent, not one thousand percent.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> Since any percentage more than one hundred percent is meaningless, you clearly mean you disagree one hundred percent, not one thousand percent.




Personally, I like it when my investments grow in multiples of 100%! Percentages greater than 100 are very very definitely a thing!  Disagreement at 1000% simply means he disagrees 10 times more vehemently than previous measured.  Wow he really disagrees with you!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> No. I disagree one thousand percent with this assertion. Obviously and clearly, what you really mean is this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe I revealed my preference of GIF sir. Unless you think I didn't know what I wanted to post?


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Personally, I like it when my investments grow in multiples of 100%! Percentages greater than 100 are very very definitely a thing!




Sure. But one cannot be more than one hundred percent anything. Context does matter, after all.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Let's see, by the English Is All-Special Like axiomatic property of mathematics, if I diagree 200%, I agree.
> If I disagree 300%, I disagree.
> If I disagree 400%, I agree.
> If I disagree 500%, I disagree.
> ...




Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts might.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> You should know better by now. Never make jokes, because then you might be forced to explain them, or justify how realistic the joke is, or maybe ensure that you have properly covered all possible antecedents for the joke!
> 
> Olaf the Brave: Knock knock!
> 
> ...



Ah, man, you can't let people live in your head rent free like that!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2020)

Nagol said:


> And did the cow really moo or did it low?  The typical sound is really a low.  Moo is relegated to distress!



Cow...

Low...

Lowkey...

My god!  The cow infiltration of the forum has begun!


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 2, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Mar 2, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I mean, is it possible, just possible, that my entire on-line presence is just a very, very, very long-term advertising play by Chick Fil A that has finally played out .... today?




It is just barely possible. Plausible is another question.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 2, 2020)

To try and somehow haul this train wreck just a tiny way back toward the topic, this whole bit about cows is moot if the cow is not also the DM* of your game.






* - Dairy Master; except cows are female so Dairy Mistress.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 2, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> * - Dairy Master; except cows are female so Dairy Mistress.



So the case of the male you;d playing with a BM at the table? Eeew.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> There's no reason that you can't set things up this way. If you have each player create a couple of NPCs who might be suspects for framing the prince, and then you also create a few of your own, then there's still plenty to discover. Who was killed? Who actually killed the person? Why did they frame the prince?
> 
> Having played in a game that has included this kind of stuff, I can say that it absolutely can work just fine. In fact, I think it worked quite well because each of the NPCs in question was familiar to at least one player and PC.....so we had a certain amount of information to start with, much like the PCs would have had. The players were very invested, and it enhanced the game quite a bit.




My issue isn't with the players creating NPCs.  My issue is with knowing it's a frame in advance.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> If the cow is the DM, it's not moot.
> 
> It's moooooooo'd.



Mind..........blown.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> My issue isn't with the players creating NPCs.  My issue is with knowing it's a frame in advance.




It depends. Yeah, it’s possible that could be a bit of a spoiler. But it depends on the way it’s positioned. If the prince is an ally of the PCs who they’d likely trust or believe, then it’s kind of baked in. 

Also, how severe of a spoiler is it? It’d be like knowing you’re gonna wind up fighting a vampire if your DM says “I’m gonna run Curse of Strahd.” 

Then of course there’s also no reason that you have to make it a frame job. Maybe the prince is simply the most obvious suspect, and maybe he turns out to be guilty. Seems a little anticlimactic to run it that way, but I don’t think there’s any reason it must be so.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> It depends. Yeah, it’s possible that could be a bit of a spoiler. But it depends on the way it’s positioned. If the prince is an ally of the PCs who they’d likely trust or believe, then it’s kind of baked in.
> 
> Also, how severe of a spoiler is it? It’d be like knowing you’re gonna wind up fighting a vampire if your DM says “I’m gonna run Curse of Strahd.”
> 
> Then of course there’s also no reason that you have to make it a frame job. Maybe the prince is simply the most obvious suspect, and maybe he turns out to be guilty. Seems a little anticlimactic to run it that way, but I don’t think there’s any reason it must be so.




Here's the positioning:
There were 6 PCs with mixed classes about 7-9th level with about the same number of henchmen a couple of levels lower.  One of the PCs was trying to ingratiate himself with the royal family and working to court a younger daughter,  The prince was partying cad.  The family knew he frequented "bad" areas in town and was involved in shady pleasure activities.

There had been some foreshadowing of the illusionist at court.  The group had traveled by ship with her previously as she came to meet her sister (the prince's betrothed) and there was some indication she was more than she appeared.

The rulers turned to the PCs to get an answer before the justice system got involved.  They wanted to know if their son and heir was guilty of such a heinous act.  They needed a fast and discreet investigation before public accusations spread.

I figured the party would in fact try to exonerate the prince both because he's the freaking crown prince and because that route provides stronger gratitude with the royal family not to mention doing a thorough investigation would be good.  Certainly, the PCs had more then enough tools at their disposal to effect such an outcome.   The player taking lead on the investigation quickly assumed the prince's guilt and did just enough investigation to surface the framing clues and no more.  All evidence that pointed to exoneration was ignored or dismissed,  The party reported their investigation and laid out a damning case against the prince to the ruling couple.


----------



## Darth Solo (Mar 3, 2020)

I hate that GMs need to apologise and defend themselves here, as if, they do less than players do. 

Do we?

I mean. After decades of running games for strange players across the hobby, no respect. No consideration. No love.

But, you say the person designing adventures and campaigns is of equal value to people who MIGHT show up with a sheet and dice?

Redefine "importance". If you say a PLAYER is of equal importance to me, as a GM, who literally SLEEPS with adventures .... 

Just call me LESS than my players.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The bolded portion is exactly what is wrong with it.  Framing is dependent on being unknown and then discovered for its enjoyment.  If the players know about it ahead of time, it highly colors their thinking and how they play their PCs as the plot unfolds.
> /snip




Huh.  There are a whole host of games - like Clue for example - that would disagree with you.  Knowing that the prince was possibly framed (note, the DM is free to change anything) but not knowing who did it - and only having 4 suspects which are not necessarily even guilty, means that there is lots of discovery to be had.

The fact that the prince is innocent of the frame or potentially guilty, is hardly the end point of the story.  This looks a lot more like a complete failure in imagination on your part @Maxperson.  There's a ton of ways the story could unfold from the beginning point of "I need 4 NPC's to frame the Prince for murder".


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  There are a whole host of games - like Clue for example - that would disagree with you.  Knowing that the prince was possibly framed (note, the DM is free to change anything) but not knowing who did it - and only having 4 suspects which are not necessarily even guilty, means that there is lots of discovery to be had.
> 
> The fact that the prince is innocent of the frame or potentially guilty, is hardly the end point of the story.  *This looks a lot more like a complete failure in imagination on your part* @Maxperson.  There's a ton of ways the story could unfold from the beginning point of "I need 4 NPC's to frame the Prince for murder".



You can keep your one true wayism.  Disliking what you like is not a "failure" on my part.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> My issue isn't with the players creating NPCs.  My issue is with knowing it's a frame in advance.




But, you don't.

Sure, the DM said, "I need 4 NPC's for a frame up of the prince".  But, again, the DM IS ALLOWED TO CHANGE ANYTHING.  

So, it might be that the prince did it or it might be a frame up.  The players don't know.  They know only what they contributed.  

Note, again, @Maxperson, since I think you may have missed it earlier in the thread, this is most certainly meant as a panacea fix of all DMing issues.  Of course not.  That it might not work at a given table is fine.  Use it, don't use it, that's up to you.  But, the criticisms that have been brought up have been pretty easy to resolve so far.  No one has yet displayed any huge flaw in what I'm proposing.  

I don't like it is perfectly fine.  But, if you're going to try to argue the point, at least make some effort as to how it could work before you automatically jump on how it won't.  Remember, I'm dropping these ideas with about 30 seconds of thought.  It's not like I'm looking at a real game and a real table.  So, yeah, shock upon shock, the examples I'm bringing up might need work to function.  That's not a surprise to anyone.  However, the fact that they can be made pretty easily to cover your complaints shows that it's a pretty robust system.

You want a scenario where someone has been killed and the prince is being blamed for it.  Ok, simple solution, "I need 4 members of the court before next session please".  Done.  How much information and how much you want to draw the players in is up to you.  

But, please, do not accuse me of one true wayism here.  That's a total misread on what I'm saying.  The question was asked, "How can we reduce DM workload".  I gave an answer to THAT question.  If you don't like my solution, groovy.  No problems.  Propose your own method for reducing DM workload.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 3, 2020)

Manbearcat said:


> Just a quick statement.
> 
> “Action Adventure (AA)” is not the same gaming subtype of TTRPGing as (I’m just going to call it) “Asymmetric Obstacle Course Marathon (AOCM).” We need a better name for that latter one!



 Traps And Monsters Marathon. TAMM... Really, tho, we don't need more acronyms.



Manbearcat said:


> Two problems that occur are:
> 
> 1) People don’t know which they actually want! They think they want AA, but they really want AOCM...or vice versa.



Right there, you've jumped the shark, sir. The moment you start accusing people of being clueless about their own desires, you basically disconnect anything following from serious consideration.

Most people do have a pretty good clue as to what they want. Many don't have the terms to express that cogently, but they generally do know what they like, and what is or isn't working for them.

Asking players after session if there was anything that didn't work well is often better than assuming they don't know what they actually want.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  There are a whole host of games - like Clue for example - that would disagree with you.  Knowing that the prince was possibly framed (note, the DM is free to change anything) but not knowing who did it - and only having 4 suspects which are not necessarily even guilty, means that there is lots of discovery to be had.
> 
> The fact that the prince is innocent of the frame or potentially guilty, is hardly the end point of the story.  This looks a lot more like a complete failure in imagination on your part @Maxperson.  There's a ton of ways the story could unfold from the beginning point of "I need 4 NPC's to frame the Prince for murder".




Clue is not an RPG. Although there are RPGs where the players knowing or contributing to the plot is perfectly legitimate and expected. Of course, not everyone enjoys that style of RPG (for example, I do but many of my players do not).

D&D has traditionally taken a different approach from that aforementioned style, hence players will have different expectations by default. Of course, it's fine to play however you want, but if you're changing the default settings it's a good idea to establish that in a session zero. And I can tell you right now that if you tried to sell my group on it, they'd give it a hard pass. Not everyone likes playing that way (and no, it's not that they're lazy or passive players; it's that this style is basically the opposite of what they want from D&D, which boils down to discovering something new and unknown).

As I've said before, giving players ownership is a good way to get them invested, as long as it doesn't interfere with their enjoyment of the game. In my experience, however, it doesn't save the GM work. If I come up with an NPC, I can create what I need, quickly and efficiently. If I ask the players to do it, I have to work with what they give me, which results in me having to bodge square pegs into round holes. Certainly, you are free to alter the NPC, but the more you change about the NPC the more likely you are to diminish the player's sense of investment and ownership (which, IMO, is the best reason for doing things this way).

How is not wanting to diminish the players' enjoyment of the game (by revealing that it is a frame job in advance) a failure of imagination? Some groups might be fine with knowing the plot of the adventure in advance, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, knowing the plot would completely ruin the experience for other groups with different preferences.

Understanding your group and their preferences is part of the GM's role (IMO). Since ruining the experience for your players is rather counter productive, avoiding things that would ruin the game is also part of the GM's role. 

There's nothing wrong with doing things as you suggest provided that your group enjoys playing that way, but suggesting that others do not play the way you do due to a lack of imagination is absurd.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> You can have threats and factions and all sorts of things, but you can't have "the Illusionist did it".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



One of the best things I've read on GMing techniques is this by Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 3, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Hey, I'll cop to that. I resemble that remark!
> 
> I mean, when I play, on those very rare occasions when I get to, I'm really lazy. Don't make me author or narrate or frame stuff. I do enough of that 99.9% of the time!
> 
> I don't need a bus driver's holiday.



Fair enough; correction to my previous post:
*it's not _necessarily_ that they're lazy or passive players, unless we're talking about @lowkey13 for whom that's totally the case


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, you don't.
> 
> Sure, the DM said, "I need 4 NPC's for a frame up of the prince".  But, again, the DM IS ALLOWED TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
> 
> So, it might be that the prince did it or it might be a frame up.  The players don't know.  They know only what they contributed.




Okay, then what's the freaking point of saying you need 4 NPCs for a frame up of the prince?    

If anything can be changed and they aren't going to know anyway, then the DM should just ask for 4 NPCs in the palace.  



> No one has yet displayed any huge flaw in what I'm proposing.




I don't know that I would call it huge, but the flaw above is definitely a flaw.  



> You want a scenario where someone has been killed and the prince is being blamed for it.  Ok, simple solution, "*I need 4 members of the court before next session please*".  Done.  How much information and how much you want to draw the players in is up to you.




I said something like this a number of posts ago.  There's no need to mention a frame of the prince and even mentioning it ruins the surprise if that's what you go with.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Okay, then what's the freaking point of saying you need 4 NPCs for a frame up of the prince?
> 
> If anything can be changed and they aren't going to know anyway, then the DM should just ask for 4 NPCs in the palace.
> 
> ...





The big problem with just asking for any form of construction without context is there is an extremely good chance nothing you get will fit to purpose.

If you really need a church, but ask for 4 random buildings, the 2 houses, outdoor shed, and lord's manor you receive are of no use.

So you need to provide context.  But, the more context you provide, the fewer surprises can be expected.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> The big problem with just asking for any form of construction without context is there is an extremely good chance nothing you get will fit to purpose.
> 
> If you really need a church, but ask for 4 random buildings, the 2 houses, outdoor shed, and lord's manor you receive are of no use.
> 
> So you need to provide context.  But, the more context you provide, the fewer surprises can be expected.



Context was provided in my post.  To frame the prince, they should know the prince and/or have access to the prince and/or palace.  By asking for 4 NPCs in the palace, you are going to get 4 NPCs that have access and can be provided motive.  There's no need to mention a frame.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Context was provided in my post.  To frame the prince, they should know the prince and/or have access to the prince and/or palace.  By asking for 4 NPCs in the palace, you are going to get 4 NPCs that have access and can be provided motive.  There's no need to mention a frame.




So the LG paladin squire, head cleric of law, young impressionable stableboy, and flirty but wholesome maid that you get back are probably not that useful.

There are literally hundreds or thousands of people that would fit the vague description.  Very few meet your more specific needs. Even fewer will make sense inside any fictional positioning already established during play.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> So the LG paladin squire, head cleric of law, young impressionable stableboy, and flirty but wholesome maid that you get back are probably not that useful.



Hah!  I knew stableboy would be in there.  

You mean the stableboy that has been abused by the prince a number of times for being slow at getting the prince's horse ready, even though the stableboy was working as quickly as could be expected?  The stableboy saved up his money for the last 3 years and managed to acquire a rare poison from a shady person in the dregs of town.   While visiting his girlfriend in the kitchens, he put the poison into the food into the plate a visiting envoy from the Kingdom of Weareannoying whom the prince hates, but had to entertain for dinner.

I could also come up with reasons for the other three to be the murderer, even the paladin(though he would probably end up falling from grace).


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I think it was more of a general point. Which is largely in accord with what you've been saying (and also Hussar, but it explains the disagreement!).
> 
> To borrow one of my favorite phrases, "Specificity is the soul of narrative."
> 
> ...



And you're lazy!!  But you can't blame lazy people. They didn't do anything.


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I think it was more of a general point. Which is largely in accord with what you've been saying (and also Hussar, but it explains the disagreement!).
> 
> To borrow one of my favorite phrases, "Specificity is the soul of narrative."
> 
> ...




I think this is why "ask the players for content (like NPCs)" doesn't seem like a helpful way to reduce the DM's workload to some of us. If we're trying to do anything that's dependent on limited information, it's at least as much work to fit in what the players give you as it is to work it up yourself.


----------



## lowkey13 (Mar 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Hah!  I knew stableboy would be in there.
> 
> You mean the stableboy that has been abused by the prince a number of times for being slow at getting the prince's horse ready, even though the stableboy was working as quickly as could be expected?  The stableboy saved up his money for the last 3 years and managed to acquire a rare poison from a shady person in the dregs of town.   While visiting his girlfriend in the kitchens, he put the poison into the food into the plate a visiting envoy from the Kingdom of Weareannoying whom the prince hates, but had to entertain for dinner.
> 
> I could also come up with reasons for the other three to be the murderer, even the paladin(though he would probably end up falling from grace).




So where's the frame?  How does the stableboy actually present evidence the prince did it?  You managed kind of plausible murder if the players pay no attention, but no frame.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> So where's the frame?  How does the stableboy actually present evidence the prince did it?  You managed kind of plausible murder if the players pay no attention, but no frame.



The frame is in killing the envoy hated by the prince during a dinner with the prince.  The prince had both motive and opportunity.  Blame is sure to be placed on him by the envoy's country, even if not someone in the palace.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> The big problem with just asking for any form of construction without context is there is an extremely good chance nothing you get will fit to purpose.
> 
> If you really need a church, but ask for 4 random buildings, the 2 houses, outdoor shed, and lord's manor you receive are of no use.
> 
> So you need to provide context.  But, the more context you provide, the fewer surprises can be expected.



Well, duh?  If you've already written a story, asking other writers for characters to put in it is gonna be weird.

If, instead, you ask for the characters and _then_ craft a story using those characters, you get better results.

I mean, the ask was for things that help take some of tge liad off, right? If you're starting from 'I've already done the work' then there's nothing to be done to lighten it, yeah -- you've already done it.  If you start there, and then ask for input, you've git it out of order.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The frame is in killing the envoy hated by the prince during a dinner with the prince.  The prince had both motive and opportunity.  Blame is sure to be placed on him by the envoy's country, even if not someone in the palace.




Motive
The prince hates the man.  OK.  Is there an actual motive for murder?  No.  State dinners often have actors that hate one another.

Opportunity?
Did the prince have access to the food? No.  Servants did.

Means?
Can anyone tie the prince to acquiring said poison? No.
Can the poison be found on the prince? No.

I repeat, where in the scenario is the frame?  I see a bystander and/or possible target if the plates go accidently switched.  Bring in the investigators and clean house by removing any dubious kitchen and wait staff. There is no serious suspicion on the prince.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 3, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, duh?  If you've already written a story, asking other writers for characters to put in it is gonna be weird.
> 
> If, instead, you ask for the characters and _then_ craft a story using those characters, you get better results.
> 
> I mean, the ask was for things that help take some of tge liad off, right? If you're starting from 'I've already done the work' then there's nothing to be done to lighten it, yeah -- you've already done it.  If you start there, and then ask for input, you've git it out of order.




You don't even need a specific story (unless your claim is every reasonable frame is the same story).  Asking for vague things nets a small number of specific responses.  The chance at least one (and preferentially multiple) submissions can be trivially modified to fit any particular circumstance is low.

The more context you provide, the less surpise the scenario can hold.

Asking for a random group of submissions may provide inspiration should you find it lacking, but that really doesn't reduce work.


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, duh?  If you've already written a story, asking other writers for characters to put in it is gonna be weird.
> 
> If, instead, you ask for the characters and _then_ craft a story using those characters, you get better results.
> 
> I mean, the ask was for things that help take some of tge liad off, right? If you're starting from 'I've already done the work' then there's nothing to be done to lighten it, yeah -- you've already done it.  If you start there, and then ask for input, you've git it out of order.




And if you don't have at least a little context, you don't know what content you need. Or want. Or whatever.

Insisting that asking the players for content will always ease the DM's workload seems like a fallacy to me, kinda like insisting that running published adventures will. If I need, say, a cabal of diabolists, it's easier and quicker for me to think for fifteen minutes and come up with 6, plus the leader (and where he's from and why he's doing this) than it is to get in touch with the players, wait for answers, edit the answers, throw out the edited answers (mostly) and use my own ideas anyway. Especially if finding out that there's a cabal is going to be the point (or part of the point) of the adventure.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Motive
> The prince hates the man.  OK.  Is there an actual motive for murder?  No.  State dinners often have actors that hate one another.




Hate is always a motive for murder.  Just because the vast majority of people who hate don't murder, doesn't remove it as a motive.



> Opportunity?
> Did the prince have access to the food? No.  Servants did.




Sure he did.  The prince is well known for visiting the kitchens to grab snacks, and he had access during the dinner.  The envoy isn't going to be looking and/or a bit of sleight of hand is all it takes.  Even if he used a servant, he was still the one that orchestrated and is responsible for the murder.



> Means?
> Can anyone tie the prince to acquiring said poison? No.




Irrelevant.  That's what the investigation by the PCs may or may not show.



> Can the poison be found on the prince? No.




Also irrelevant.  The prince could have destroyed it by the time the poison started working and killed the envoy.  The investigation will have to happen to show these things.


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

Nagol said:


> Motive
> The prince hates the man.  OK.  Is there an actual motive for murder?  No.  State dinners often have actors that hate one another.
> 
> Opportunity?
> ...




I'm not trying to get into a crossfire here, but are you and @Maxperson using "frame" the same way here? It seems as though you aren't, and that's maybe not helping communication. Seems as though @Nagol is using it in the same sense as "framing a story" while @Maxperson is using it in the same sense as "framing someone for murder."

If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me and return to your argument, already in progress.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

prabe said:


> And if you don't have at least a little context, you don't know what content you need. Or want. Or whatever.



I'm not sure we're talking about tge same thing.  It seems like you're still requiring a pre-witten plotline.  I'm saying that, if you do, then expecting naive insertion of material, regardless of source, will of course be odd.  If, instead, you ask for the material and then start building plot, it's not odd.

If, instead, you mean that material should be somewhat constrained by genre and established fiction but not pre-written plot, then sure, we agree


> Insisting that asking the players for content will always ease the DM's workload seems like a fallacy to me, kinda like insisting that running published adventures will.



Of course that's a fallacy, 100% agree.  I also don't think anyone's saying that.  I might be wrong, there's at least one person in the thread whose posts I can't see.  No one I do see has said that. 


> If I need, say, a cabal of diabolists, it's easier and quicker for me to think for fifteen minutes and come up with 6, plus the leader (and where he's from and why he's doing this) than it is to get in touch with the players, wait for answers, edit the answers, throw out the edited answers (mostly) and use my own ideas anyway. Especially if finding out that there's a cabal is going to be the point (or part of the point) of the adventure.



Yes, if you've decided on a plot then you've already made decisions about the game that means you've accepted doing more work.  That's been said a number of times.  You don't have to choose this, though.  You could ask your player for some NPCs and then riff off what you get to build plot featuring thise NPCs.  Or, something else.  

Tools are useful if you use them in ways they're meant to work.  If you try to use them in other ways, the results can be frustrating.  Some tools have been suggested along with how to use them.  Most of this conversation seems to be complaining that the tools don't work other ways.  Like complaining a screwdriver is a poor tool for driving nails.  I agree, it is.  I'm talking about using screws, though.


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure we're talking about tge same thing.  It seems like you're still requiring a pre-witten plotline.  I'm saying that, if you do, then expecting naive insertion of material, regardless of source, will of course be odd.  If, instead, you ask for the material and then start building plot, it's not odd.
> 
> If, instead, you mean that material should be somewhat constrained by genre and established fiction but not pre-written plot, then sure, we agree




You talk about a pre-written plotline, and that sounds to me as though I know (or think I know) what will happen. I'm more trying to work out what has happened, what is happening before the PCs insert themselves; the only "will happen" stuff I bother with is stuff that will happen in the absence of interference. I don't set out to prep more than the next session when I sit down to prep; as an example, I have a session tomorrow evening that I'm hoping to get at least some prep done today, and I'm not planning to prep anything for the session after that (though stuff might carry over, of course).



Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, if you've decided on a plot then you've already made decisions about the game that means you've accepted doing more work.  That's been said a number of times.  You don't have to choose this, though.  You could ask your player for some NPCs and then riff off what you get to build plot featuring thise NPCs.  Or, something else.




What has been said a number of times in response to this is that for some of us, getting the content from the players and integrating it with the content in our heads is more work than generating it ourselves. It could be about the players (not all players are good at generating content this way), it could be that the DM literally finds generating content easier than integrating someone else's, it could be both of those, it could be something else. And none of those needs to be bad, exactly, or anyone's fault.



Ovinomancer said:


> Tools are useful if you use them in ways they're meant to work.  If you try to use them in other ways, the results can be frustrating.  Some tools have been suggested along with how to use them.  Most of this conversation seems to be complaining that the tools don't work other ways.  Like complaining a screwdriver is a poor tool for driving nails.  I agree, it is.  I'm talking about using screws, though.




Sure. It just feels sometimes as though we're being told we should have used screws from the start, so we could now use this nice screwdriver.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

prabe said:


> You talk about a pre-written plotline, and that sounds to me as though I know (or think I know) what will happen. I'm more trying to work out what has happened, what is happening before the PCs insert themselves; the only "will happen" stuff I bother with is stuff that will happen in the absence of interference. I don't set out to prep more than the next session when I sit down to prep; as an example, I have a session tomorrow evening that I'm hoping to get at least some prep done today, and I'm not planning to prep anything for the session after that (though stuff might carry over, of course).



Not at all.  I'm talking about the plot you've set up to frame play.  I'm not sure what you'd call the story behind the prep but plot.  The example of the Prince being set up by an Illusionist is a plot, yes?  Even if you leave open how that plot resolves, you've still created a plot that will constrain that play.

We could continue to take what others say in the worst light, as if they are criticizing our play, or we could try to understand how what they say could work -- what things must be true to make it work.  And, then, maybe we could accept that there are multiple ways and that one is not better but that they are different.

And, there are multiple ways to appriach this example of play.  The one you're using, which is the GM preparing a plot for the players to resolve in play, is the default way D&D us played.  It's perfectly fine, I use it  myself for 5e even if I may be a bit looser about it.  But, it does put most of tge wirk on the GM's shoulders.  If that's not a probkem, cool beand.  If it is, then there's no way to both continue to prepare plots and reduce the workload.  Something must change.  The suggestions offered require that you don't prep the plot first, ir have the udea if what will feature in play, but instead build iff of player input a plot around that input.  You cannot have an idea that the Prince is franed and then get input -- this causes weirdness, as you note.  Instead, ask for input regarding the Court and then build a story based on that input.  The input should have all the hooks you'd need, you should just be able to start play from one of them by framing a situation and then bring in others as play progresses.  Maybe that's the Prince being framed, maybe it's something else. That's the point -- you can't have established plots (even if still unrevealed in the notes) and expect new naive input to align.



> What has been said a number of times in response to this is that for some of us, getting the content from the players and integrating it with the content in our heads is more work than generating it ourselves. It could be about the players (not all players are good at generating content this way), it could be that the DM literally finds generating content easier than integrating someone else's, it could be both of those, it could be something else. And none of those needs to be bad, exactly, or anyone's fault.



I 100% agree, you should not expect getting NPCs from players to be less work if you have to align them to your prepped plotlines.  That's more work, don't do this.  If you solicit material from playerd, you need to do this before you prep a plotline.   

An example.  I started a 5e Sigil campaign a year ago.  The constraints on PC gen were that they already lived in Sigil and they could work as a group.  Backgrounds could be anything so long as they ended in Sigil.  I told players to select an uncommon magic item to start (5th level start), but that we would resolve getting it in the 1st session.

1st session, I went around the table, starting with a random PC, and put tgem in a situation regarding their desired item and one if the Sigil factions.  After the player engaged the situation, I complicated it abd then asked which other PC showed up.  That PC's player was then asked how the situation resolved with their help.  This made the PCs have an immediate conflict between a faction and their item, but also forged a stiry with another PC to jumpstart the party interactions.

After that, we ran an adventure I'd prepped that had nithing to do with the player inputs because I needed to introduce the campaign themes. But, since then, I've incorporated player input, either by keaving blanks that I can ask to be filled in or building play on orevious inputs.  I'm still prepping plotlines, if loosely, because 5e lacks robust mechanics to drive play in the moment and because we, as a group, like the tactical combat game and so I need maos and encounters, both hard to do on the fly.

Still, a great deal of my prep is offloaded by getting input from players, and my Sigil game is much richer for it.  It also helps that my campaign plotline is very vague so I'm not tied to it.  Heck, through play a minor fetch quest item has now assumed a huge place in the game because my players have decided it's important.  It wasn't, I had no plans for it, but now it is.  Why? Because my players kept earning failures so were doublecrossed, had to work extra hard to get it again (making a few unwise bargains), and then it ended up enmeshed with a player backgrounf.  2 sessions of planned play ended up being 4m3 months if weekly games through play, so darned right tgat thing better be important.  How is it important? No idea, yet.


> Sure. It just feels sometimes as though we're being told we should have used screws from the start, so we could now use this nice screwdriver.



Yes, if you want to use screwdrivers you have to start with screws.  If you used nails, stick with the hammer.  The suggestions were how to reduce prep, but not how to do so if you want to keep the same level of prep you have now.  These tools to reduce prep require approaching play a different way -- if you keep to your (perfectly good, perfectly workable) current play, then they don't work.

I think a large part of the confusion here is that the above is obvious to many proposing the different tools, but it really isn't.  It's not obvious because it requires a fundamentally different approach to play.  Making that leap isn't easy if you want to, it's harder if you don't even see the point.  And, that's fine.  No one is less for not "getting it."  It's kinda like a videogame with different characters that require very different playstyle approaches.  Most players are going to end up liking thise characters the "get" and not liking thise they don't, and will still have fun playing and can even be excellent players eithin their grokked stable of characters.  Other players may be able to understand more than one approach and have a wider stable of characters, but that doesn't mean they have more fun or are better players.  They just have more options, which is entirely unecessary to enjoy playing.

But, techniques that one player uses will be if limited use to another player using a different character.  What's obvious here us that you can easily identify this and say 'that doesn't work for my character.'  This isn't as clear in this conversation, though, and people who are recommending a play tool are doing so with the unspoken assumption that a reader will understand that you have to change playstyles as well because it's obvious to them.  It's not, so let me say that you will, indeed, have to change characters to use these play tools.  They don't work with your current character.  If you like your current play, then don't worry about it, you're doing it the only right way -- that being the way you have fun.  There us no way to prep games for less work and keep the things you want to keep, thoug.  You have to change something.


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not at all.  I'm talking about the plot you've set up to frame play.  I'm not sure what you'd call the story behind the prep but plot.  The example of the Prince being set up by an Illusionist is a plot, yes?  Even if you leave open how that plot resolves, you've still created a plot that will constrain that play.




I guess it doesn't even feel like a plot to me, if all I have is maybe the instigating event and some backstory, but that's probably a holdover from my various attempts to write fiction.



Ovinomancer said:


> We could continue to take what others say in the worst light, as if they are criticizing our play, or we could try to understand how what they say could work -- what things must be true to make it work.  And, then, maybe we could accept that there are multiple ways and that one is not better but that they are different.




I'm trying to read you in a positive light, but it sometimes feels as though there is some failure of communication (two-way failure, to be clear) happening. I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, there are multiple ways to appriach this example of play.  The one you're using, which is the GM preparing a plot for the players to resolve in play, is the default way D&D us played.  It's perfectly fine, I use it  myself for 5e even if I may be a bit looser about it.  But, it does put most of tge wirk on the GM's shoulders.  If that's not a probkem, cool beand.  If it is, then there's no way to both continue to prepare plots and reduce the workload.  Something must change.  The suggestions offered require that you don't prep the plot first, ir have the udea if what will feature in play, but instead build iff of player input a plot around that input.  You cannot have an idea that the Prince is franed and then get input -- this causes weirdness, as you note.  Instead, ask for input regarding the Court and then build a story based on that input.  The input should have all the hooks you'd need, you should just be able to start play from one of them by framing a situation and then bring in others as play progresses.  Maybe that's the Prince being framed, maybe it's something else. That's the point -- you can't have established plots (even if still unrevealed in the notes) and expect new naive input to align.




So, to give an idea of what my prep is like, I'm going to expand on the cabal from my campaign, because I've actually run it (this past Saturday, in fact).

The party ended up at the city because they'd heard there was some sort of unpredictable thing nearby spitting Fire Elementals into the world, and a member of the party had a Ring of Fire Elemental Command he wanted to get fully powered-up.

I thought about it, and I decided maybe there should be more to it than that, so I decided that the portal to the Plane of Fire was overlaid onto a portal to Stygia (one of the Nine Hells). And that the portal to Fire was intended as protection, with something like a kamikaze mode if intruded on severely, so the party might accidentally set off the portal to Stygia in the process of turning off the portal to the Plane of Fire.

The party fought their way to the portal/s, closed them both without incident, and found some stuff the cabal had stashed there as something like a bug-out cache.

So I had to figure out who was in the cabal, and why. That wasn't too hard. The consequences of the party dealing with the cabal were also pretty straightforward, as well.

That was two sessions worth of material (broke after party closed the portals), and what story there was mostly emerged in play. I just took what seemed like the next logical step, repeatedly. All of this was stuff that the party was interpolating itself into, so much of my DMing at the table was asking myself repeatedly "What does this change?"



Ovinomancer said:


> I 100% agree, you should not expect getting NPCs from players to be less work if you have to align them to your prepped plotlines.  That's more work, don't do this.  If you solicit material from playerd, you need to do this before you prep a plotline.




I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to. I GMed that campaign closer to what I think you're talking about, by letting the players tell me what's going on. That's how I ended up in a Fate game with a wedding reception that had the Aspect on it "All God's chillun got guns." Frankly, I found running that way more mental load, more work, than preparing all the stuff myself.



Ovinomancer said:


> 1st session, I went around the table, starting with a random PC, and put tgem in a situation regarding their desired item and one if the Sigil factions.  After the player engaged the situation, I complicated it abd then asked which other PC showed up.  That PC's player was then asked how the situation resolved with their help.  This made the PCs have an immediate conflict between a faction and their item, but also forged a stiry with another PC to jumpstart the party interactions.




This isn't really all that different from how I start campaigns in D&D. Take the characters, put them in the same time and place, throw [stuff] at the fan.



Ovinomancer said:


> But, since then, I've incorporated player input, either by keaving blanks that I can ask to be filled in or building play on orevious inputs.  I'm still prepping plotlines, if loosely, because 5e lacks robust mechanics to drive play in the moment and because we, as a group, like the tactical combat game and so I need maos and encounters, both hard to do on the fly.




Heh. I find maps easy to do on the fly. Markers and a battlemat. If the party is still in roughly the same environment, turn the battlemat around, maybe add a couple things.



Ovinomancer said:


> It also helps that my campaign plotline is very vague so I'm not tied to it.  Heck, through play a minor fetch quest item has now assumed a huge place in the game because my players have decided it's important.  It wasn't, I had no plans for it, but now it is.  Why? Because my players kept earning failures so were doublecrossed, had to work extra hard to get it again (making a few unwise bargains), and then it ended up enmeshed with a player backgrounf.  2 sessions of planned play ended up being 4m3 months if weekly games through play, so darned right tgat thing better be important.  How is it important? No idea, yet.




Funny thing is, my players have managed to surprise me. Something tossed in as a side event became important. They made friends and allies, and have been in contact with some important beings (though they may not know how important yet). All emergent from play, though clearly different from the play at your table.



Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, if you want to use screwdrivers you have to start with screws.  If you used nails, stick with the hammer.  The suggestions were how to reduce prep, but not how to do so if you want to keep the same level of prep you have now.  These tools to reduce prep require approaching play a different way -- if you keep to your (perfectly good, perfectly workable) current play, then they don't work.




In my experience, the suggestions that have come up don't reduce prep so much as change it. Even if you don't have an idea of where things are going to go next, if you get a bunch of naive input (to use your term) you're still going to have to work to fit it together into something. It might be easy, if your players are all more or less on the same page; if your players are in different books, it might be a challenge.



Ovinomancer said:


> I think a large part of the confusion here is that the above is obvious to many proposing the different tools, but it really isn't.  It's not obvious because it requires a fundamentally different approach to play.  Making that leap isn't easy if you want to, it's harder if you don't even see the point.  And, that's fine.  No one is less for not "getting it."




Actually, it's pretty obvious, at least to me. Remember, I've tried it that way. It requires a different approach not just from the GM, but from the players, and the GM can only control one part of that.



Ovinomancer said:


> If you like your current play, then don't worry about it, you're doing it the only right way -- that being the way you have fun.  There us no way to prep games for less work and keep the things you want to keep, thoug.  You have to change something.




I think there might have been some hope, lo these many pages ago, that there might be suggestions for how to prep more efficiently, within more or less the same paradigm. I have a sneaking suspicion that hope has been thoroughly extinguished. It might be possible to prep more efficiently without changing the kind of prep you do, but yes, it almost certainly involves changing something (and that something might not be something you want to change).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

prabe said:


> I guess it doesn't even feel like a plot to me, if all I have is maybe the instigating event and some backstory, but that's probably a holdover from my various attempts to write fiction.



Fair enough.  Do you have a better term for "tge story do far, which the players will investigate to find out about so they can make decision?" I'd be glad to use it.

Again, I don't think this is a bad thing -- I do it, too!  But, it is a thing and it needs to be recignized that the choice to do it this way results in GM workload.  Choosing other ways can reduce that workload, but may not result in play you want.




> I'm trying to read you in a positive light, but it sometimes feels as though there is some failure of communication (two-way failure, to be clear) happening. I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to.



Respectfully, your experience shows that you haven't fully grasped the concept.  That's okay, as it really does require abandoning quite a lot of what we learn as traditionally minded D&D GMs.  While I haven't done Dresden, I did look over the rules a few years ago.  I, too, saw City creation as a big effort for the GM, one that seemed like a lot of work up front to nassage player input into something I could run.  Looking at it niw, I see something very different.  I'd spend maybe half a session building out the city and then start playing on that.  I'd probably iterate the city building step a few more times in later sessions, or leave it open for ad hoc creation by players, but I could start running almost immediately.  Take a proffered threat, a proffered location, add in PC build info, grab a  proffered NPC or group and it's off to the races.  Frame the PCs into a situation and then follow along.  My genre knowledge alongside that little bit of collaborative orep would be enough.  Now, the players would need to lean in and drive through their PCs, but that's part and parcel of Fate.

The difference between me then and me know?  I let go of what I knew about GMing and tried hard to do it a different way.  The result is that I see that way as a possibility.  My choices of approach are broader.  This doesn't make me better or my games better or anything else.  It's more akin to  knowing how to paint in oils vs cooking a meal.  Both can result in great art, but they're different things.  Knowing how to do one and not the other isn't a bad thing.  Learning one means you can't treat it as the other, though.  This is a poor analogy, like all of them, and I hope we don't get into how this analogy breaks down but instead use the takeaway to understand I'm talking about somewhat incompatible approaches to a goal and that not grokking one of them doesn't make anyone kess aewsome.



> So, to give an idea of what my prep is like, I'm going to expand on the cabal from my campaign, because I've actually run it (this past Saturday, in fact).
> 
> The party ended up at the city because they'd heard there was some sort of unpredictable thing nearby spitting Fire Elementals into the world, and a member of the party had a Ring of Fire Elemental Command he wanted to get fully powered-up.
> 
> ...



Cool, but I don't understand what you prepped versus what played out.  At the level you present, I'd have made a few bullet points, collected a rogues gallery of foes from my files (books, etc), and made some maos of places I thought might be interesting to fight in.  Of that, the first would have been 10-15 tops, the second about 30 mins (using KFC), and the last variable on if I had stuff already, but probably 2 hours if I have to make a few.



> I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to. I GMed that campaign closer to what I think you're talking about, by letting the players tell me what's going on. That's how I ended up in a Fate game with a wedding reception that had the Aspect on it "All God's chillun got guns." Frankly, I found running that way more mental load, more work, than preparing all the stuff myself.



I think this is a c&p oops.  My answer is above.




> This isn't really all that different from how I start campaigns in D&D. Take the characters, put them in the same time and place, throw [stuff] at the fan.
> How much prep is the discussion, not similarity of the result.   I maybe spent 3 hours in prep for this campaign, most on that start adventure, and the majority of that on the map.  I have a thing for maps.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## prabe (Mar 3, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Fair enough.  Do you have a better term for "tge story do far, which the players will investigate to find out about so they can make decision?" I'd be glad to use it.




Backstory? Setting?



Ovinomancer said:


> Respectfully, your experience shows that you haven't fully grasped the concept. That's okay, as it really does require abandoning quite a lot of what we learn as traditionally minded D&D GMs.  While I haven't done Dresden, I did look over the rules a few years ago.  I, too, saw City creation as a big effort for the GM, one that seemed like a lot of work up front to nassage player input into something I could run.




Respectfully, you don't seem to have understood my experience, which may be because I didn't explain it clearly. The reason it took eight hours of table time, and the reason I ended up doing more than half the work, even though there were three others at the table, is because ...well ... it didn't feel as though anyone else at the table was coming up with much, if anything, and what they did come up with was ... not especially coherent. Even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed, and my willing suspension of disbelief was strained from the get-go.

Telling me I didn't understand something because I didn't enjoy it is ... not a way to get me to read you in a positive light. If you can point out something specific you think I misunderstood, that works a bit better.



Ovinomancer said:


> It's more akin to  knowing how to paint in oils vs cooking a meal.  Both can result in great art, but they're different things.  Knowing how to do one and not the other isn't a bad thing.  Learning one means you can't treat it as the other, though.  This is a poor analogy, like all of them, and I hope we don't get into how this analogy breaks down but instead use the takeaway to understand I'm talking about somewhat incompatible approaches to a goal and that not grokking one of them doesn't make anyone kess aewsome.




Eh. The analogy works as well as any others, I might expect, though I don't think different approaches to running a TRPG are quite as different as oil-painting and cooking. There seems to be more cross-pollination than that, so maybe more like the difference between cooking two different cuisines? I've said elsewhere (and I mean it) that while I genuinely don't expect to run Fate again, I'm a better DM for having run it.



Ovinomancer said:


> Cool, but I don't understand what you prepped versus what played out.




I prepped the portals. I prepped what would come through. I prepped the cabal (seven NPCs, with motivations and where they were). I prepped what the cabal would do if left alone.

The party went places and talked to people, and I decided (with some help from dice) what the people they were talking to knew, and based how helpful they were going to be on the party's social skills (using passive scores rather than asking for rolls). The party found the cabal and (kinda to my surprise) captured them, rather than killing them.

The portals were one session, the cabal in the city the next. It probably took me something like two hours to prep for each session, pen-on-paper, writing monster stats on index cards (because they're handy), rolling up random treasures, typing up any treasure stuff that seemed to need it. Writing up the monster-cards is probably what takes the most time, but that's my own choice (and not something I think I've ever complained about). So, very little in the sense of "what's going on."



Ovinomancer said:


> I think this is a c&p oops.  My answer is above.




I when I assembled my post, this seemed more relevant as a response to soliciting material from the players.



Ovinomancer said:


> What I trued to get at was the idea of "playing to find out what hapoens."  On first blush, this also appears to be what happens in all games -- after all, we play to see what happens to the OCs, right? But, this turn of phrase actually means that all players, including the GM, are playing with no prep.  That there isn't a dungeon, or Prince's framing, or portal to Stygia blocked by a portal to Elemental Fire until it's established in play through adjudication of player actions.




This doesn't strike me so much as "play to find out what happens" as "play to find out what's there." Reminds me of boardgames where you lay you the map as you go, so the map isn't ever the same. As I've said, I've GMed like this before, and it seemed like more of a mental load than having stuff prepped; the difference between inventing something and remembering it.


----------



## Numidius (Mar 3, 2020)

@Ovinomancer, great post above, useful example.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 3, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> I think there might have been some hope, lo these many pages ago, that there might be suggestions for how to prep more efficiently, within more or less the same paradigm. I have a sneaking suspicion that hope has been thoroughly extinguished. It might be possible to prep more efficiently without changing the kind of prep you do, but yes, it almost certainly involves changing something (and that something might not be something you want to change).




Ding, ding, ding... We have a winner.  However the crux of the thread never really hit there (except for a handful of posters) and instead quickly turned to... play & run this other way if you want an easier workload vs. here's how to make your workload (in the style you want to play) easier... and yeah I guess that's an answer in the same way cutting of your foot would stop a pain in your foot... _shrug_


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

prabe said:


> Backstory? Setting?



Not setting. Backstory gets confusing between talking about open to players backstory and secret to players backstory.  Clearly we haven't been talking about ooen backstory because you don't have to prep that.  Secret backstory then? 




> Respectfully, you don't seem to have understood my experience, which may be because I didn't explain it clearly. The reason it took eight hours of table time, and the reason I ended up doing more than half the work, even though there were three others at the table, is because ...well ... it didn't feel as though anyone else at the table was coming up with much, if anything, and what they did come up with was ... not especially coherent. Even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed, and my willing suspension of disbelief was strained from the get-go.



Ah, then we have two issues here.  One, your players absolutely fell down on their job and two, you felt it was up to you to salvage it.  I think abandoning this was the right call, it doesn't seem like it was a good fit for your group.


> Telling me I didn't understand something because I didn't enjoy it is ... not a way to get me to read you in a positive light. If you can point out something specific you think I misunderstood, that works a bit better.



Fair enough, although I didn't actually say you didn't understand something because you didn't enjoy it.  If anything, the reverse.  Still, good point about assuming.

Accepting you do understand this kind of play does leave me confused as to why we're discussing what we're discussing.  I mean, if you already know that encouraging player input means you'll have to change how you run, what's the disagreement, again?




> Eh. The analogy works as well as any others, I might expect, though I don't think different approaches to running a TRPG are quite as different as oil-painting and cooking. There seems to be more cross-pollination than that, so maybe more like the difference between cooking two different cuisines? I've said elsewhere (and I mean it) that while I genuinely don't expect to run Fate again, I'm a better DM for having run it.



I think they're about that different.  I run bith kinds of games, and no myth games are really very different in execution than traditional D&D.  The results, though, are both food?  As I said, no analogy is perfect.




> I prepped the portals. I prepped what would come through. I prepped the cabal (seven NPCs, with motivations and where they were). I prepped what the cabal would do if left alone.
> 
> The party went places and talked to people, and I decided (with some help from dice) what the people they were talking to knew, and based how helpful they were going to be on the party's social skills (using passive scores rather than asking for rolls). The party found the cabal and (kinda to my surprise) captured them, rather than killing them.
> 
> The portals were one session, the cabal in the city the next. It probably took me something like two hours to prep for each session, pen-on-paper, writing monster stats on index cards (because they're handy), rolling up random treasures, typing up any treasure stuff that seemed to need it. Writing up the monster-cards is probably what takes the most time, but that's my own choice (and not something I think I've ever complained about). So, very little in the sense of "what's going on."



Cool, thanks, that's helpful in understanding.




> I when I assembled my post, this seemed more relevant as a response to soliciting material from the players.
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't strike me so much as "play to find out what happens" as "play to find out what's there." Reminds me of boardgames where you lay you the map as you go, so the map isn't ever the same. As I've said, I've GMed like this before, and it seemed like more of a mental load than having stuff prepped; the difference between inventing something and remembering it.



Yes, I've heard that complaint before. Usually because the person is trying to replicate prepped play with improv and becomes overwhelmed with the details.  That may not be your problem, but ut's what I've often seen.  And, in the context of D&D, I don't think you're terribly wrong.  5e, for example, uses the4 system for task resolution.  This neans that, say, getting past a locked door is going to be tested by which task the player proposes.  Bash it down? A strength check is needed which requires the GM to determine how strong the door is, if it's barred, swollen shut, etc.  A host of details now need to be determined, and that's just for a door!  Yeah, ad libbing 5e isn't easy because the system fights you and that makes your observation true.

But, that's not always true.  If you use a system that is built to do this kind if play, it's actually not that hard.  You have to accept that your job as GM is tightly constrained and lean into it.  The PC builds will give you everything you need to kick things off and to carry things forward.  If, through play, there's a door that needs kicking down, you don't beed to know anything about it.  If tge PC succeeds at the check, the door was able to he kicked open because it just was.  If they fail, then the door was barred, or stuck, or magically sealed, or... whatever works in play.  Because you aren't ad libbing details but following play and only providing details to explain events, it's loads easier.  Fate can play like this, 5e really can't (without some kludgey hacks).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Ding, ding, ding... We have a winner.  However the crux of the thread never really hit there (except for a handful of posters) and instead quickly turned to... play & run this other way if you want an easier workload vs. here's how to make your workload (in the style you want to play) easier... and yeah I guess that's an answer in the same way cutting of your foot would stop a pain in your foot... _shrug_



There were never any suggestions on how to reduce prep while still featuring GM prep.  Honestly, if these existed, we'd already know them.  And, we do, which is a discussion that, in part, can lead to Illusionism and Force.  That's not a bad thing, by the way.  I happen to believe it's impossible to both have heavy GM prep and not have Force (and it's cousin Illusionism).  

The offered suggestion were how to do less prep.  Not keep your same level pf prep but make it easier.  There's a difference.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 4, 2020)

The problem here is that some of the alternate prep styles directly index alternate play styles. They won't help anyone who wants to run the same plotted adventure do it any faster. There's nothing wrong with that either, plotted adventures are really cool. You can certainly use a bunch of ideas from FATE and PtbA to help reduce prep for D&D but the corollary is that you must also lean into the accompanying play style - you don't get one without the other.  That's also fine, and also cool. 

There is some room in the middle where you can use some elements of both styles, and with, potentially, a midrange amount of prep. This is going to be a very individualized thing though. Every DM does things does things a little differently and would have to tinker with what parts suit their needs, table, and campaign. It's tough to give advice about, and it won't help reduce prep for an existing campaign because you can't really (or maybe shouldn't) switch horses in midstream.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The problem here is that some of the alternate prep styles directly index alternate play styles. They won't help anyone who wants to run the same plotted adventure do it any faster. There's nothing wrong with that either, plotted adventures are really cool. You can certainly use a bunch of ideas from FATE and PtbA to help reduce prep for D&D but the corollary is that you must also lean into the accompanying play style - you don't get one without the other.  That's also fine, and also cool.
> 
> There is some room in the middle where you can use some elements of both styles, and with, potentially, a midrange amount of prep. This is going to be a very individualized thing though. Every DM does things does things a little differently and would have to tinker with what parts suit their needs, table, and campaign. It's tough to give advice about, and it won't help reduce prep for an existing campaign because you can't really (or maybe shouldn't) switch horses in midstream.



Yup, this is what I've been saying.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 4, 2020)

Type of campaign is also a factor. My advice is maybe less helpful for dungeon or hex crawls. That said, lots of people really enjoy Dungeon World, which is D&D done PtbA style, so it's not useless either. What I specifically have been messing around with ideas from FATE and PtbA for is to run urban intrigue campaigns. I wanted more handles for social interaction, I wanted more player knowledge of NPCs and factions off the hop, I wanted a reputation system and I generally wanted the game to be more character driven in general. So I went looking for ideas and mechanics that matched what I wanted to do. 

That process is exactly what I would suggest to anyone else - make a list of what you want to be able to do better or differently, and then find ideas that will work for you. In my case it did end up reducing prep in a couple of ways, but I'm not sure that would be the case for everyone, I think it would depend on the exact changes made.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, if you want to use screwdrivers you have to start with screws.  If you used nails, stick with the hammer.  The suggestions were how to reduce prep, but not how to do so if you want to keep the same level of prep you have now.



Yet that's exactly what we're all looking for: how to reduce the amount of prep work while maintaining the same prep level!

Telling us to reduce the level in order to reduce the work doesn't help, as in theory we're already working at a level we like and are comfortable with.  But how to reduce the workload while keeping the prep level where it is...yeah, we're all ears! 



> These tools to reduce prep require approaching play a different way -- if you keep to your (perfectly good, perfectly workable) current play, then they don't work.



To go back to the tools analogy: we're using nails, and are looking for a less labour-intensive means of getting them into the wood than the hammer we already have.

Which means don't tell us about screwdrivers and all the advantages screws have over nails.  Instead, introduce us to a flippin' nail gun and show us how it works!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 4, 2020)

So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, you want to run exactly the same kind of adventures, just have them involve less prep work?


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, you want to run exactly the same kind of adventures, just have them involve less prep work?



Once the discussion turned this way, yes - I'm looking for an exchange of ideas as to how to do what each of us already do and get the results we already get, only better and-or more efficiently.

Unfortunately, while there have been one or two useful tidbits go by, most of the discussion has boiled down to different takes on 'do something else that isn't what you already do, and expect different results'.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Once the discussion turned this way, yes - I'm looking for an exchange of ideas as to how to do what each of us already do and get the results we already get, only better and-or more efficiently.
> 
> Unfortunately, while there have been one or two useful tidbits go by, most of the discussion has boiled down to different takes on 'do something else that isn't what you already do, and expect different results'.



Did you think, at this point, a new and improved way to run a game like you always have would show up?  

I think a terrible job of expectation management has paired with a terrible case of unmanaged expectations.


----------



## prabe (Mar 4, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Once the discussion turned this way, yes - I'm looking for an exchange of ideas as to how to do what each of us already do and get the results we already get, only better and-or more efficiently.
> 
> Unfortunately, while there have been one or two useful tidbits go by, most of the discussion has boiled down to different takes on 'do something else that isn't what you already do, and expect different results'.




While I think it's possible there are efficiencies to find, no matter how you prep, I'm not sure how one conveys them, and what one person finds efficient another might not.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Did you think, at this point, a new and improved way to run a game like you always have would show up?



Never say never, my friend. One can always hope.


----------



## prabe (Mar 4, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not setting. Backstory gets confusing between talking about open to players backstory and secret to players backstory.  Clearly we haven't been talking about ooen backstory because you don't have to prep that.  Secret backstory then?




Eh. Prior events is probably short enough. At least for now it's not likely to get confused with, say, prior events in a character's story.



Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, then we have two issues here.  One, your players absolutely fell down on their job and two, you felt it was up to you to salvage it.  I think abandoning this was the right call, it doesn't seem like it was a good fit for your group.




I wouldn't say the other people at the table fell down on the job so much as they and the system didn't fit together. I ran that for like a year, then my frustrations with the campaign and the system stopped building gradually and started building rapidly.



Ovinomancer said:


> Accepting you do understand this kind of play does leave me confused as to why we're discussing what we're discussing.  I mean, if you already know that encouraging player input means you'll have to change how you run, what's the disagreement, again?




It's not really a disagreement, I guess, so much as trying to convey that I wasn't rejecting the idea of getting more player input blindly or ignorantly, but based on knowledge that it doesn't work for my players or for me as a GM. Sometimes it can seem grindingly difficult to get that across.




Ovinomancer said:


> I think they're about that different.  I run bith kinds of games, and no myth games are really very different in execution than traditional D&D.  The results, though, are both food?  As I said, no analogy is perfect.
> 
> Yes, I've heard that complaint before. Usually because the person is trying to replicate prepped play with improv and becomes overwhelmed with the details.  That may not be your problem, but ut's what I've often seen.  And, in the context of D&D, I don't think you're terribly wrong.  5e, for example, uses the4 system for task resolution.  This neans that, say, getting past a locked door is going to be tested by which task the player proposes.  Bash it down? A strength check is needed which requires the GM to determine how strong the door is, if it's barred, swollen shut, etc.  A host of details now need to be determined, and that's just for a door!  Yeah, ad libbing 5e isn't easy because the system fights you and that makes your observation true.
> 
> But, that's not always true.  If you use a system that is built to do this kind if play, it's actually not that hard.  You have to accept that your job as GM is tightly constrained and lean into it.  The PC builds will give you everything you need to kick things off and to carry things forward.  If, through play, there's a door that needs kicking down, you don't beed to know anything about it.  If tge PC succeeds at the check, the door was able to he kicked open because it just was.  If they fail, then the door was barred, or stuck, or magically sealed, or... whatever works in play.  Because you aren't ad libbing details but following play and only providing details to explain events, it's loads easier.  Fate can play like this, 5e really can't (without some kludgey hacks).




Eh. It's really not that hard in D&D, either. I ad lib people and places and events all the time. I improvise maps on my battlemat. I guess I make oracular die rolls to help with the improvisation. All that, though, is based on knowing what's going on in the background. I think part of what I've been trying to get across is that it's easier for me (and possibly for others) to improvise if I'm the only one generating content. I prepare so I can improvise, so I can respond to the players and the characters and involve them all in the goings-on.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> /snip
> 
> How is not wanting to diminish the players' enjoyment of the game (by revealing that it is a frame job in advance) a failure of imagination? Some groups might be fine with knowing the plot of the adventure in advance, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, knowing the plot would completely ruin the experience for other groups with different preferences.
> 
> ...




It's a lack of imagination in that with 30 seconds of work, I can add the mystery back into the scenario.  DM says, "I need 4 court NPC's".  Poof, end of problem.  Or, "There is going to be a murder, the Prince will be suspected, I need 4 NPC's that are in the court".  Again, nothing there is doing anything to disturb the mystery.  Or, "The prince is being framed for murder, I need 4 NPC's" ((DM is lying)).  

That took all of 10 seconds to think of.  But, instead, @Maxperson comes out, guns blazing, claiming how this cannot possibly work and it's a complete waste of time.  My point is, without any sort of effort, I can address his criticisms.  Since it took me all of 10 seconds to come up with very, very obvious solutions to his "problems", I am fairly safe in claiming that it displays a rather disturbing lack of imagination.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2020)

prabe said:


> And if you don't have at least a little context, you don't know what content you need. Or want. Or whatever.
> 
> Insisting that asking the players for content will always ease the DM's workload seems like a fallacy to me, kinda like insisting that running published adventures will. If I need, say, a cabal of diabolists, it's easier and quicker for me to think for fifteen minutes and come up with 6, plus the leader (and where he's from and why he's doing this) than it is to get in touch with the players, wait for answers, edit the answers, throw out the edited answers (mostly) and use my own ideas anyway. Especially if finding out that there's a cabal is going to be the point (or part of the point) of the adventure.




Now, this?  I totally agree with this.  Dumping some of the work load off on the players isn't going to work 100% of the time.  It just isn't.  But, there are a number of times when it really, really will.

Players purchase an inn (a la Dragon Heist).  Tell the players to tell you what the staff of the inn is and give you half a dozen (it's a pretty big inn) NPC's for use in the inn.  Right there, that's a load of work off my hands that engages the players.  And, frankly, becomes a lovely goldmine of material for further adventures.

Will it work every time?  Nope, of course not.  No solution is 100% foolproof.  But, again, the question on the table is how do we reduce the bar to DMing to make running games easier.  Instead of widdling on ideas that everyone agrees that will not work 100% of the time, howzabout suggesting alternative methods?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 4, 2020)

Hussar said:


> It's a lack of imagination in that with 30 seconds of work, I can add the mystery back into the scenario.  DM says, "I need 4 court NPC's".  Poof, end of problem.  Or, "There is going to be a murder, the Prince will be suspected, I need 4 NPC's that are in the court".  Again, nothing there is doing anything to disturb the mystery.  Or, "The prince is being framed for murder, I need 4 NPC's" ((DM is lying)).
> 
> That took all of 10 seconds to think of.  But, instead, @Maxperson comes out, guns blazing, claiming how this cannot possibly work and it's a complete waste of time.  My point is, without any sort of effort, I can address his criticisms.  Since it took me all of 10 seconds to come up with very, very obvious solutions to his "problems", I am fairly safe in claiming that it displays a rather disturbing lack of imagination.



It also took me 10 seconds to arrange the frame and have the players create 4 NPCs, without spoiling a good chunk of the players' fun.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It also took me 10 seconds to arrange the frame and have the players create 4 NPCs, without spoiling a good chunk of the players' fun.




Then why are you disagreeing with me?

/edit 

Or, rather, what was the point of this post if you understood the point and could alter it to suit what you wanted in 10 seconds?



Maxperson said:


> The bolded portion is exactly what is wrong with it.  Framing is dependent on being unknown and then discovered for its enjoyment.  If the players know about it ahead of time, it highly colors their thinking and how they play their PCs as the plot unfolds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 4, 2020)

Hussar said:


> It's a lack of imagination in that with 30 seconds of work, I can add the mystery back into the scenario.  DM says, "I need 4 court NPC's".  Poof, end of problem.  Or, "There is going to be a murder, the Prince will be suspected, I need 4 NPC's that are in the court".  Again, nothing there is doing anything to disturb the mystery.  Or, "The prince is being framed for murder, I need 4 NPC's" ((DM is lying)).
> 
> That took all of 10 seconds to think of.  But, instead, @Maxperson comes out, guns blazing, claiming how this cannot possibly work and it's a complete waste of time.  My point is, without any sort of effort, I can address his criticisms.  Since it took me all of 10 seconds to come up with very, very obvious solutions to his "problems", I am fairly safe in claiming that it displays a rather disturbing lack of imagination.



IMO, it has nothing to do with imagination (lacking or otherwise) and everything to do with play style.

Lets face it, asking for random court NPCs is potentially problematic. The players could end up giving you NPCs that are hard to work in to what your planning. You could do it the other way around, getting the NPCs and then building the adventure around them as some have suggested, but unless the main issue is writer's block, that could easily end up being more work as you try to bodge disparate elements together.

It's not bad as a means toward investing the players in the game, but it seems more likely to me to have the potential for making the GM's work harder than it is to save effort. Granted, being more specific about the NPCs is more likely to result in material you can use with less effort.

However, for certain play styles, such as those that emphasize discovery of the game world by the players, being more specific about what you need is a non starter. Telling them that there's going to be a murder diminishes their discovery (because they should be able to discover it during play). Telling them that it is a frame job flat out wrecks a significant portion of the discovery element, and is similarly likely to wreck the players'enjoyment of the adventure. 

Heck, something I haven't seen addressed is what if the players just decide to ignore the prince murder plot because they're not in the mood for a mystery? It's one thing if I, the GM, create an NPC that doesn't get used. However, if my players create something I'm going to do everything I can to showcase that content. Because I certainly don't want to give them the impression that I'm forcing them to work like I'm their boss or something. Now we're getting into use of Force to make them interact with their content (as opposed to having the freedom to do what they want).

That said, with the right group, yes, this approach may have the potential to save work. But it's important to acknowledge that for other groups it will typically result in more work. Which isn't to say that there aren't other possible benefits, such as increased investment by the players. Rather, the point is that this isn't some panecea for lightening the GM's workload, and can actually result in more work. Not always, but it will depend on how compatible the group is with this technique. If you agree, then we're on the same page.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 4, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> Heck, something I haven't seen addressed is what if the players just decide to ignore the prince murder plot because they're not in the mood for a mystery? It's one thing if I, the GM, create an NPC that doesn't get used. However, if my players create something I'm going to do everything I can to showcase that content. Because I certainly don't want to give them the impression that I'm forcing them to work like I'm their boss or something. Now we're getting into use of Force to make them interact with their content (as opposed to having the freedom to do what they want).



This is always going to be an issue, and it comes up a lot in plotted versus sandbox play conversations. For me, this is a session zero issue. You give the players a pitch and they agree to it. In this case, something like "there is a conspiracy that threatens the very foundations of the kingdom, and you need to find out what it is". Once the players have agreed then you're gold, mostly. Problems creep in when the pitch is more like "you get to explore this cool fantasy world" or something equally exploration facing. At that point the players have no particular reason to bite on any one adventure hook. Even in a sandbox game though, if we're talking specific tables, I think most groups would probably bite on a mystery if the hook is good, but maybe not. Sandbox games are the very devil when it comes to heavy prep that might not get used.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 4, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Then why are you disagreeing with me?
> 
> /edit
> 
> Or, rather, what was the point of this post if you understood the point and could alter it to suit what you wanted in 10 seconds?



Why do you want to spoil a good chunk of the fun of the players?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 4, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> This is always going to be an issue, and it comes up a lot in plotted versus sandbox play conversations. For me, this is a session zero issue. You give the players a pitch and they agree to it. In this case, something like "there is a conspiracy that threatens the very foundations of the kingdom, and you need to find out what it is". Once the players have agreed then you're gold, mostly. Problems creep in when the pitch is more like "you get to explore this cool fantasy world" or something equally exploration facing. At that point the players have no particular reason to bite on any one adventure hook. Even in a sandbox game though, if we're talking specific tables, I think most groups would probably bite on a mystery if the hook is good, but maybe not. Sandbox games are the very devil when it comes to heavy prep that might not get used.



Yep, not all techniques are compatible with all play styles. 

I suspect that a technique like asking players to create NPCs is going to be most effective in sparing the GM work if you're already playing in a low prep play style (such as the default assumed style of Dungeon World, which relies significantly on improvisation and where players are expected to play a role in world building during play). 

Although, I think it's fair to say that even though you're reducing prep, you're also increasing the GM's mental load during play. For example, if the GM asks a question and the player comes back with some bonkers response, the GM needs to figure out how to say "Yes and" or "Yes but".


----------



## Imaro (Mar 4, 2020)

Ovinomancer said:


> There were never any suggestions on how to reduce prep while still featuring GM prep.  Honestly, if these existed, we'd already know them.  And, we do, which is a discussion that, in part, can lead to Illusionism and Force.  That's not a bad thing, by the way.  I happen to believe it's impossible to both have heavy GM prep and not have Force (and it's cousin Illusionism).
> 
> The offered suggestion were how to do less prep.  Not keep your same level pf prep but make it easier.  There's a difference.





I'm going to disagree, I think there are ways to reduce prep time while still featuring GM based prep... and why do you assume any one person in the thread would know all of them?  You personally may not be able to think of some or you personally may feel like you know all of them but, especially after the numerous posts you've been pumping out concerning generalizations, you probably shouldn't be speaking for everyone else in the thread.  

I think moreso people who were looking for this immediately saw where this thread was going (promotion of a particular playstyle or particular way of playing/running things) and figured it wasn't worth their time unless they wanted to change their game style vs. get tips for how to do less prep in their preferred style...a few posters called this out earlier but I think it was ignored by a select few for continuing down the road of playstyle changes..


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 4, 2020)

In order to reduce prep without altering your GM style or spreading the worldbuilding around with the players, you have plenty of options. Many will or won't work for each group, but there are ways. 

- Use an established setting- this gives you all kinds of lore and locations and people and organizations to work with, and likely maps and other useful material that you can use without having to make it yourself. It may also have the benefit of grabbing your players' attention because they already have some connection to the setting. Alternatively, it may do the opposite if you have someone who hates a given setting for some reason. Think about what you need the setting to be or do.....then take a hard look at your homebrew world and see if there's a published world that largely does the same thing. If so, ask yourself that hard question....does this need all the work I'm about to put into this? Or should I just buy and read this other book that has a similar world? Or can I get what I want by taking this established setting and giving it a few tweaks? This is probably the biggest time sink.....the idea that the GM must or should craft an entire world himself. It's hard to accept that the players will likely not see a substantial difference from a homebrewed world and a published one. They may.....and there may be an idea you have that will create a truly unique setting that hits the notes you want it to. But you have to decide if the effort is necessary, or if you can achieve what you want with far less work.

- Use and reuse stat-blocks- create a stable of stat-blocks for characters of a specific type. Need a court wizard who counsels the duke? Need an evil wizard who is gathering a force in the nearby mountains? the same stat-block can be used for both of these and many other characters. The same can be said for many other NPCs that you'll need. You don't need to craft each and every NPC that your players will run into....it's a colossal waste of time.

- Obtain a variety of material- buy or find material that you can use in play, whether these are battle maps or dungeon tiles or what have you. Anything that will save you time from having to create maps yourself, whether regional maps, or tactical grid maps. Read as many adventures as you can, especially from alternate publishers. Even if you don't plan to actually run the adventure aspresented. See more approaches to play. Break the adventure apart into its components and see what you can use. Check out material from sources you might not normally consider, like OSR books and zines, for example. 

- Steal ideas shamelessly- There's nothing wrong with lifting things from other media. If you need a couple of NPCs on the fly, think of a pair of characters you know from a book or movie, and then morph them to fit your need. I had a pair of NPCs that were basically Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon. It gave me physical descriptions I could use and also a kind of RP angle for each. All I did was write "Guild Mercs, Riggs and Murtaugh" and then pasted the relevant stat-block. I didn't have to write a description of them or character traits or anything else, just a trigger that gave me everything I needed at the table when the time came to run them. Steal frequently and indiscriminately.

- Use player offered information- I almost hesitate to mention this because I don't want people to take it as going as far as previously mentioned in this thread. However, you can still maintain a GM focused style while taking cues and ideas from your players. Steal from them for your campaign. One of the PCs stole a relic from some dark church? Use the church. Another PC says that his adventuring uncle is the reason he's become an adventurer himself; have the uncle show up. Place these things into the world whenever you can. Replace your ideas with these if you need to, or merge them if possible. 

- Draw maps, leave blanks- this is advice from Dungeon World, so I know it starts to push into changing GM style, but I think it's still useful to keep it in mind. You can also think of this as "hold on loosely" to your plans. Leave some details to be decided in play. Exercise the improv muscles, and with time, you'll be comfortable with determining some things on the fly. I don't mean to leave the dark temple unmapped and unpopulated, but those couple of rooms down the side hallway? Leaving them blank saves you time up front, and gives you the flexibility to adapt to how play has actually gone at that point. If things have proven far easier than expected, you can have one of the rooms contain another encounter. If things have gone horribly for the PCs, then maybe the room is an alchemist's lab, and the PCs can find some potions that might help them a bit. I know this may not work for some folks, but it's advice that I think is good to consider.

- Examine your at table practices- do you track all HP yourself? Do you also track initiative? What do the players do during play? Think about these kinds of practices and what they mean for your game. I've played ina game where the GM tracked all damage, never actually giving numbers, but instead narrating the loss of HP for all characters, including the PCs. This created some uncertainty for the PCs and made them very cautious because they were never 100% sure how far they were from 0 HP. But this requires a lot of effort on the GM. This isn't about prep so much as easing the burden in play, but I'd include it as similar advice. 

- Organize- related to the above of examining table practices, do what you can to properly index things and lay them out for use at the table. As someone who likes to use multiple monster and/or NPC stat-blocks in a single encounter, it can be a pain in the ass and a big time waster to sit there and flip pages to the required stats. Now, this is more about in play, but if you organize ahead of time and develop a system for how you prepare and arrange the information you'll need in play, then it'll cut down on the amount of time that you spend on this stuff.

There are plenty more, for sure. Others likely have ways they would suggest that I haven't even thought of. It's certainly going to be different for everyone. I think the biggest thing to do is to examine your practices and decide what you want to improve, and then consider anything that may affect that. Must you home brew the setting? Does it actually enhance play for all? Can you repurpose materials for your use, whether it's a stat-block or a map or anything else? Give all these things serious consideration, and then decide what you want to do.


----------



## prabe (Mar 4, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> - Use an established setting- this gives you all kinds of lore and locations and people and organizations to work with, and likely maps and other useful material that you can use without having to make it yourself. It may also have the benefit of grabbing your players' attention because they already have some connection to the setting. Alternatively, it may do the opposite if you have someone who hates a given setting for some reason. Think about what you need the setting to be or do.....then take a hard look at your homebrew world and see if there's a published world that largely does the same thing. If so, ask yourself that hard question....does this need all the work I'm about to put into this? Or should I just buy and read this other book that has a similar world? Or can I get what I want by taking this established setting and giving it a few tweaks? This is probably the biggest time sink.....the idea that the GM must or should craft an entire world himself. It's hard to accept that the players will likely not see a substantial difference from a homebrewed world and a published one. They may.....and there may be an idea you have that will create a truly unique setting that hits the notes you want it to. But you have to decide if the effort is necessary, or if you can achieve what you want with far less work.




This is a good idea. Starting with published stuff also gives you an idea of what you need, if you ever write your own. The fact I struggle to make sense of published settings doesn't make this bad general advice, just advice I'm unlikely to think to give.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Use and reuse stat-blocks- create a stable of stat-blocks for characters of a specific type. Need a court wizard who counsels the duke? Need an evil wizard who is gathering a force in the nearby mountains? the same stat-block can be used for both of these and many other characters. The same can be said for many other NPCs that you'll need. You don't need to craft each and every NPC that your players will run into....it's a colossal waste of time.




This is part of why I write things on index cards. Granted, it's more monsters than NPCs, but I do re-use them. A parallel is to not worry too much about NPC stats until they matter. If you have a grand vizier sort, just have an idea until/unless you need his stats. If the players never engage, they'll never miss the work you didn't do.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Obtain a variety of material- buy or find material that you can use in play, whether these are battle maps or dungeon tiles or what have you. Anything that will save you time from having to create maps yourself, whether regional maps, or tactical grid maps. Read as many adventures as you can, especially from alternate publishers. Even if you don't plan to actually run the adventure aspresented. See more approaches to play. Break the adventure apart into its components and see what you can use. Check out material from sources you might not normally consider, like OSR books and zines, for example.




This is good. Also, third-party products for things like monsters or items or spells, if you want to throw the occasional curveball at your players. You might need to vet with some care, but there are guidelines in the DMG that are helpful, here.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Steal ideas shamelessly- There's nothing wrong with lifting things from other media. If you need a couple of NPCs on the fly, think of a pair of characters you know from a book or movie, and then morph them to fit your need. I had a pair of NPCs that were basically Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon. It gave me physical descriptions I could use and also a kind of RP angle for each. All I did was write "Guild Mercs, Riggs and Murtaugh" and then pasted the relevant stat-block. I didn't have to write a description of them or character traits or anything else, just a trigger that gave me everything I needed at the table when the time came to run them. Steal frequently and indiscriminately.




This is kinda related to the previous one, but the idea of snagging ideas from other media is solid. Even if your players don't catch the references, it'll make it easy for you to remember. I have some powerful quasi-deities in my setting, one of whom is named for Dante Alighieri and another is named for Randall Flagg.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Use player offered information- I almost hesitate to mention this because I don't want people to take it as going as far as previously mentioned in this thread. However, you can still maintain a GM focused style while taking cues and ideas from your players. Steal from them for your campaign. One of the PCs stole a relic from some dark church? Use the church. Another PC says that his adventuring uncle is the reason he's become an adventurer himself; have the uncle show up. Place these things into the world whenever you can. Replace your ideas with these if you need to, or merge them if possible.




This. Very much this. Character actions and decisions have consequences. Also, if your players start speculating around the table, take that as an opportunity to either prove them right, or to prove them wrong; either result can be fun for all concerned.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Draw maps, leave blanks- this is advice from Dungeon World, so I know it starts to push into changing GM style, but I think it's still useful to keep it in mind. You can also think of this as "hold on loosely" to your plans. Leave some details to be decided in play. Exercise the improv muscles, and with time, you'll be comfortable with determining some things on the fly. I don't mean to leave the dark temple unmapped and unpopulated, but those couple of rooms down the side hallway? Leaving them blank saves you time up front, and gives you the flexibility to adapt to how play has actually gone at that point. If things have proven far easier than expected, you can have one of the rooms contain another encounter. If things have gone horribly for the PCs, then maybe the room is an alchemist's lab, and the PCs can find some potions that might help them a bit. I know this may not work for some folks, but it's advice that I think is good to consider.




This is part of why I don't prep more than the upcoming session. I often/usually don't know where the players are going to be at the end of the session, so it's easier to prep less. Overflow happens, and isn't bad, and stuff that gets missed can be recycled. This isn't to suggest going all "quantum ogre," but you can certainly use a monster block later in a different context, or shift parts of an idea the party never encountered.



hawkeyefan said:


> - Examine your at table practices- do you track all HP yourself? Do you also track initiative? What do the players do during play? Think about these kinds of practices and what they mean for your game. I've played ina game where the GM tracked all damage, never actually giving numbers, but instead narrating the loss of HP for all characters, including the PCs. This created some uncertainty for the PCs and made them very cautious because they were never 100% sure how far they were from 0 HP. But this requires a lot of effort on the GM. This isn't about prep so much as easing the burden in play, but I'd include it as similar advice.




Again, this. Know yourself, and how much bandwidth you have. I don't have a problem tracking initiative, but some tables find it faster/easier if someone other than the DM does so. If there's, say, a party-allied NPC, don't be afraid to hand that off to a player to run in combat. Also decide whether you want ACs and DCs to always be secret. I usually announce ACs, at least after a couple rounds. Encourage players to roll to-hit and damage at the same time (and seriously consider doing this yourself).



hawkeyefan said:


> - Organize- related to the above of examining table practices, do what you can to properly index things and lay them out for use at the table. As someone who likes to use multiple monster and/or NPC stat-blocks in a single encounter, it can be a pain in the ass and a big time waster to sit there and flip pages to the required stats. Now, this is more about in play, but if you organize ahead of time and develop a system for how you prepare and arrange the information you'll need in play, then it'll cut down on the amount of time that you spend on this stuff.




This is a big part of why I use my index cards for monsters and occasional NPCs. Even if I have to sort through a stack of index cards, that's still quicker than finding things across three or four books.



hawkeyefan said:


> There are plenty more, for sure. Others likely have ways they would suggest that I haven't even thought of. It's certainly going to be different for everyone. I think the biggest thing to do is to examine your practices and decide what you want to improve, and then consider anything that may affect that. Must you home brew the setting? Does it actually enhance play for all? Can you repurpose materials for your use, whether it's a stat-block or a map or anything else? Give all these things serious consideration, and then decide what you want to do.




I'm not really thinking of things that aren't in this. There are some people who try to get the prep onto one page, so there's no flipping. I try to make it easy to read, so there's white space, so it takes more pages. Tastes will vary here. I also try to have a solid handle on what's going on and use the dice kinda like an oracle--I'm either rolling to see how much a given NPC knows, or I'm rolling to see whether he sees through a PC who's trying to snow him; makes things a little less predictable.

If you're writing your own adventures and your stuck, try an oracle. Tarot or I Ching, if you feel comfortable doing so, or something like Rory's Story Dice (which you can get as an app) if you prefer something without mystical baggage. In either case, you're not completely bound to the oracle; just use it to see if a connection you'd missed emerges, or as a starting idea from which you can diverge. This isn't quicker, necessarily, but it might be easier and/or less stressful.


----------



## atanakar (Mar 4, 2020)

I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much. 

I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.


----------



## prabe (Mar 4, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.
> 
> I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.




I enjoy it like no other gaming experience. When I'm on (which I have been, more than not, since I started running 5E almost two years ago) there's nothing else that engages so much of my brain.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 4, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.
> 
> I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.



I think it isn't an unusual trait among DMs. 

If you don't enjoy it, you probably won't last long as a DM, unless you stick to modules or have a talent for improvisation.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 4, 2020)

prabe said:


> This is a good idea. Starting with published stuff also gives you an idea of what you need, if you ever write your own. The fact I struggle to make sense of published settings doesn't make this bad general advice, just advice I'm unlikely to think to give.




Yeah, it can be tough. I find it's tough for a RPG setting book to do all the jobs that are expected of it. Usually, any individual book will offer a few things that are useful, and then the rest is just filler, and it can be hard to determine the difference. 

I like shorter, to the point kind of guides than to the big encyclopedic volumes that give you all the world's history and every town and so on. There seems to be a push these days for guides that are more "teach a man to fish" in approach. I hope that continues.



prabe said:


> This is part of why I write things on index cards. Granted, it's more monsters than NPCs, but I do re-use them. A parallel is to not worry too much about NPC stats until they matter. If you have a grand vizier sort, just have an idea until/unless you need his stats. If the players never engage, they'll never miss the work you didn't do.




Yeah, definitely. There's no need to detail every NPC. If something comes up, and all of a sudden you need stats for the Captain of the Guard, there are plenty of stat blocks that would suit. Knowing where to find them, or printing certain ones ahead of time for ease of reference is the key here. 

The use of index cards can be great here. I've done that where I jot down as much as I can for any monster on an index card for reference during play, and I include the book and page number where I can find it. Then I can clip those index cards to my DM screen (which otherwise almost always goes unused) or to a clipboard so I can reference them easily. 

I used to use them for initiative too, and would cycle through the cards. When I came the Troll's turn, I had its stats right there on my card. We've changed how we do initiative, but until we did I found that very helpful.



prabe said:


> This is good. Also, third-party products for things like monsters or items or spells, if you want to throw the occasional curveball at your players. You might need to vet with some care, but there are guidelines in the DMG that are helpful, here.




Yeah, I think trying different tools is key to finding the right ones for you. Like you mention that setting guides don't really work for you, but I think it would probably be a good idea to check one out occasionally to see if there might be one that does something different, that does work for you. 




prabe said:


> This is kinda related to the previous one, but the idea of snagging ideas from other media is solid. Even if your players don't catch the references, it'll make it easy for you to remember. I have some powerful quasi-deities in my setting, one of whom is named for Dante Alighieri and another is named for Randall Flagg.




Yeah, sometimes I might intend for the references to be noticed, other times no. With the Riggs and Murtaugh, it was really just so I had a dynamic between the two (old veteran/young reckless guy) and could lean on physical descriptsions of Danny Glover and Mel Gibson. I think I had the Murtaugh guy say "I'm too old for this $#!+" but I wasn't concerned if anyone picked up on it at all. It was more about the mnemonic trigger of "These guys are like Riggs and Murtaugh" giving me a guide in play and saving any details I needed to prepare or anything like that.



prabe said:


> This. Very much this. Character actions and decisions have consequences. Also, if your players start speculating around the table, take that as an opportunity to either prove them right, or to prove them wrong; either result can be fun for all concerned.




I find that the more players are engaged, the more likely they start speaking more and discussing more, which gives the GM a chance to breathe. This is one of those intangible benefits, and again, what does the trick will vary, but if you can engage players and get them discussing things in detail, and deciding on how to proceed, it'll not only buy you time, but you may hear something they say that inspires you, and you can incorporate it into play.



prabe said:


> This is part of why I don't prep more than the upcoming session. I often/usually don't know where the players are going to be at the end of the session, so it's easier to prep less. Overflow happens, and isn't bad, and stuff that gets missed can be recycled. This isn't to suggest going all "quantum ogre," but you can certainly use a monster block later in a different context, or shift parts of an idea the party never encountered.




Yeah, I have general ideas on things, but the players definitely go off in their own crazy ways at times. For many folks, the keyed dungeon is kind of the classic archetype of an adventure, so having a dungeon that is not fully mapped or stocked ahead of time just doesn't make sense. I would have agreed years ago, but my group and I have moved away from that kind of site based adventure, so it's made more sense to try different approaches.



prabe said:


> Again, this. Know yourself, and how much bandwidth you have. I don't have a problem tracking initiative, but some tables find it faster/easier if someone other than the DM does so. If there's, say, a party-allied NPC, don't be afraid to hand that off to a player to run in combat. Also decide whether you want ACs and DCs to always be secret. I usually announce ACs, at least after a couple rounds. Encourage players to roll to-hit and damage at the same time (and seriously consider doing this yourself).




I usually don't give out ACs until a few attack rolls have given an indication of where it likely is....but yeah, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What does keeping it secret yield in play versus just saying it right up front? I think GMs have to ask these questions and decide what's actually best rather than just doing what they've always done. They may decide that what they've always done is best....if so, great.....but there may be things where you discover that, in play, doing things differently actually is an improvement.



prabe said:


> This is a big part of why I use my index cards for monsters and occasional NPCs. Even if I have to sort through a stack of index cards, that's still quicker than finding things across three or four books.








prabe said:


> I'm not really thinking of things that aren't in this. There are some people who try to get the prep onto one page, so there's no flipping. I try to make it easy to read, so there's white space, so it takes more pages. Tastes will vary here. I also try to have a solid handle on what's going on and use the dice kinda like an oracle--I'm either rolling to see how much a given NPC knows, or I'm rolling to see whether he sees through a PC who's trying to snow him; makes things a little less predictable.




Yeah, i try to get my session bullet points and NPC list all on one page just so it's easy to read, etc. I don't cram all the monster stats etc. on that, just my general notes. 

I also make up index cards for important NPCs and hand them to my players. Ideally, I'll even have a picture of some sort that I print and stick to the card. I find it helps the players keep track of NPCs and I don't have to constantly remind them of who everyone is, because they can check it themselves.




prabe said:


> If you're writing your own adventures and your stuck, try an oracle. Tarot or I Ching, if you feel comfortable doing so, or something like Rory's Story Dice (which you can get as an app) if you prefer something without mystical baggage. In either case, you're not completely bound to the oracle; just use it to see if a connection you'd missed emerges, or as a starting idea from which you can diverge. This isn't quicker, necessarily, but it might be easier and/or less stressful.




That's a great alternate method. It may not save time, but you never know.....maybe someone would just continue to go back and forth in their mind about the best way to proceed, but if they gave the decision up to a method like that, it may help them commit. 




atanakar said:


> I derive a lot of pleasure from drawing maps, plans and perspectives of buildings, creating interesting NPCs and engaging challenges for players. Home brewed campaigns have always been my thing since we switched to AD&D1e. It is the reason I like playing D&D so much.
> 
> I don't find being the DM is a burden at all. Maybe I'm a rare species.




I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players. 

The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.


----------



## atanakar (Mar 4, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players.
> 
> The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.




I never plan more than one game in advance. The current campaign I'm running are all one-shots that have developed into a campaign over time. After each game I take into account what happened and prepare the next.


----------



## prabe (Mar 4, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, it can be tough. I find it's tough for a RPG setting book to do all the jobs that are expected of it. Usually, any individual book will offer a few things that are useful, and then the rest is just filler, and it can be hard to determine the difference.
> 
> I like shorter, to the point kind of guides than to the big encyclopedic volumes that give you all the world's history and every town and so on. There seems to be a push these days for guides that are more "teach a man to fish" in approach. I hope that continues.




Yeah. There's really not much need for more than the area surrounding where the campaign begins, at least at first. Holds true for published stuff and for homebrew. I think it'd be good for someone (probably not WotC, given the publishing schedule they're sticking to) to publish a guide for new DMs on creating and running settings. Maybe it exists somewhere, or maybe something for another game might serve, though the latter really doesn't seem as useful to me as it might, because I'm thinking about all these people coming to the game without past game experience and little-to-no experience in system conversion.



hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I think trying different tools is key to finding the right ones for you. Like you mention that setting guides don't really work for you, but I think it would probably be a good idea to check one out occasionally to see if there might be one that does something different, that does work for you.




Agreed. I sometimes buy setting books, if they have enough crunchy bits (character items, magic, items) that I feel it's worth my money.



hawkeyefan said:


> I find that the more players are engaged, the more likely they start speaking more and discussing more, which gives the GM a chance to breathe. This is one of those intangible benefits, and again, what does the trick will vary, but if you can engage players and get them discussing things in detail, and deciding on how to proceed, it'll not only buy you time, but you may hear something they say that inspires you, and you can incorporate it into play.




Yup. Listen to your players. They'll tell you what's working, and what they enjoy, and what they want to see, all without really meaning to.



hawkeyefan said:


> I usually don't give out ACs until a few attack rolls have given an indication of where it likely is....but yeah, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What does keeping it secret yield in play versus just saying it right up front? I think GMs have to ask these questions and decide what's actually best rather than just doing what they've always done. They may decide that what they've always done is best....if so, great.....but there may be things where you discover that, in play, doing things differently actually is an improvement.




Yeah, that's pretty much how I do it. If everyone needs to save, I announce the DC. Just seems to streamline play some (unless I don't want them to know they didn't save, of course).



hawkeyefan said:


> That's a great alternate method. It may not save time, but you never know.....maybe someone would just go back and forth in their mind about the best way to proceed, but if they gave the decision up to a method like that, it may help them commit.




If someone is trying to decide between two things, the procedure is easy: Flip a coin; whatever you find yourself rooting for, do; if you don't find yourself rooting for anything, go with what the coin says.



hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if I'd say rare. I think this is likely something that kind of works out because some of the "work" that goes into running a game is the kind of activity that some people really enjoy. I like pondering what may come next, and different challenges or ideas I'd like to throw at my players.
> 
> The two reasons I don't do more prep are (1) I don't have as much time as I used to, and (2) I prefer to not commit too strongly to whats happening in the game so that my players are kind of deciding what comes next. I've had to adjust for both of these things.




I really GMing in-session, and I really enjoy the prep, because it's a more solitary creative endeavor (though I'm more about words than visuals, can't draw or anything to save my life). And these days I have a lot of time. So, it's kinda an all-around win. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> IMO, it has nothing to do with imagination (lacking or otherwise) and everything to do with play style.
> 
> Lets face it, asking for random court NPCs is potentially problematic. The players could end up giving you NPCs that are hard to work in to what your planning. You could do it the other way around, getting the NPCs and then building the adventure around them as some have suggested, but unless the main issue is writer's block, that could easily end up being more work as you try to bodge disparate elements together.
> /snip




Except that @Maxperson admits that he could have resolved his issues in 10 seconds.  But, then, we get this reaction:



Maxperson said:


> Why do you want to spoil a good chunk of the fun of the players?




For me and my players this wouldn't spoil anything.  Having a murder mystery, knowing that it's a possible frame job and having flawed inside information would be a ton of fun for us.  For your bunch, obviously not so much.  So, instead of presuming that all groups are the same and that they would have their fun spoiled, particularly when I was simply giving a single example that was not meant as a hard and fast blanket rule, why not simply do as you did, spend ten seconds on adding something constructive to the conversation about how my idea could be modified to work at other tables?

Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not handing out panaceas here.  I'm giving suggestions.  

@hawkeyefan gave out a list of excellent ideas on how to reduce DM's prep.  But, why aren't you, @Maxperson and @Fanaelialae jumping up and down on him for forcing play styles?  He's telling you to buy modules.  Maybe your group doesn't like modules.  Why aren't you accusing him of badwrongfun for suggesting using modules?  Why aren't you jumping up and down widdling all over his ideas?  

Because, as far as I'm concerned, all I did was offer a suggestion.  He offered several suggestions.  We're being productive and attempting to show methods for reducing DM's prep.  Instead of repeatedly telling me why my idea won't work at your table, why don't you actually add something to the conversation?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 5, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Except that @Maxperson admits that he could have resolved his issues in 10 seconds.  But, then, we get this reaction:




I'm not Max.



> For me and my players this wouldn't spoil anything.  Having a murder mystery, knowing that it's a possible frame job and having flawed inside information would be a ton of fun for us.  For your bunch, obviously not so much.  So, instead of presuming that all groups are the same and that they would have their fun spoiled, particularly when I was simply giving a single example that was not meant as a hard and fast blanket rule, why not simply do as you did, spend ten seconds on adding something constructive to the conversation about how my idea could be modified to work at other tables?
> 
> Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not handing out panaceas here.  I'm giving suggestions.
> 
> ...




The OP is about whether the GM's role is the most important, not about methods of making the GMs job easier. If it were the latter, then I would agree that I am not contributing. However, given the actual topic of the thread, and how difficulty of GMing arguably pertains to it, I would say that I am contributing to the thread. Although, it might be fair to say that at this point we're both beating a dead horse...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2020)

Topics drift.  For the past fifteen or twenty pages, some couple of hundred responses, we've been talking about possible methods for reducing DM prep.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 5, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Topics drift.  For the past fifteen or twenty pages, some couple of hundred responses, we've been talking about possible methods for reducing DM prep.



They certainly do, and I never claimed you were off topic. However, the reduction of DM prep, as it was brought up in this thread, was used to justify why DMing isn't hard (or at least why it isn't as hard as some make it out to be). So while you (and perhaps others) may have drifted into discussing prep reduction, my (and perhaps others') attempt at rebutting that argument and pointing out circumstances where it doesn't work is pertinent to the thread. 

I don't expect you to recollect this, because as you say this has been a long thread, but my stance is that while the DM's role is harder than that of a player, that doesn't necessarily make the DM more important. In fact, I dispute the usefulness of the term "important", because it's a fairly subjective term. So I don't think our stances are as far apart as they may appear at first glance. We simply disagree on a few particulars.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 5, 2020)

As far as that goes, no, I'm in total agreement with you.  I don't believe that it is particularly useful to frame the notion of the DM being more "important " at all.  Right with you there.

I'm not even totally convinced that the role is "harder".  More work, sure, but, not really "harder" in the sense that it takes some sort of special training or skill to do.  And, if we reduce the workload, then, it's not really any harder in the sense of taking more time either.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 5, 2020)

Hussar said:


> As far as that goes, no, I'm in total agreement with you.  I don't believe that it is particularly useful to frame the notion of the DM being more "important " at all.  Right with you there.
> 
> I'm not even totally convinced that the role is "harder".  More work, sure, but, not really "harder" in the sense that it takes some sort of special training or skill to do.  And, if we reduce the workload, then, it's not really any harder in the sense of taking more time either.



More work automatically equals harder.  One definition of hard is "with a great deal of work."  So while DMing might not be hard(doesn't take a great deal of work).  It is harder(requires more work) than playing.


----------



## atanakar (Mar 5, 2020)

I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a *hobby*. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.

Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 5, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a *hobby*. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.
> 
> Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.



Effort is work, whether you view it as "work" or not.  I don't view it as work in the sense of doing a job, either, but it is work as in you are working to accomplish something.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Mar 5, 2020)

atanakar said:


> I don't view DMing as work or a job. To me it is a *hobby*. The time I spend preparing before and after the game brings me just as much pleasure as the actual role-playing session.
> 
> Does that make me the most important person at the table? Not at all.



As I see it, DMing doesn't mean that you're more important than a player, but it does (normally) mean you have both different and greater rights as well as responsibilities, than the players.

In most games, the DM is empowered to veto something a player proposes, for example.

The DM is also typically responsible for running the game. Yes, you can delegate, but it is ultimately your responsibility.

Some people like rights and responsibilities. Some don't. For example, not everyone wants to be the boss at work, despite that it usually includes added compensation (unlike DMing). Not that I'm suggesting the DM is the boss, I'm simply illustrating that not everyone wants that.

Does that mean it is harder? That really depends on your definition of harder. Those who love doing that kind of work and don't mind having the rights and responsibilities might not see it as harder. Those who don't enjoy those things or feel that the rights/responsibilities are a burden will almost certainly view DMing as significantly harder.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 5, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> As I see it, DMing doesn't mean that you're more important than a player, but it does (normally) mean you have both different and greater rights as well as responsibilities, than the players.
> 
> In most games, the DM is empowered to veto something a player proposes, for example.
> 
> The DM is also typically responsible for running the game. Yes, you can delegate, but it is ultimately your responsibility.




That's why I refer to the DM as first among equals.



> Does that mean it is harder? That really depends on your definition of harder. Those who love doing that kind of work and don't mind having the rights and responsibilities might not see it as harder. Those who don't enjoy those things or feel that the rights/responsibilities are a burden will almost certainly view DMing as significantly harder.



It's factually harder regardless of how they see it.  It's more work and more work = harder.  It's just something that is still easy for them to do, so they misperceive it.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2020)

prabe said:


> I understand how the kind of GMing you're talking about works--I've done it, using the Our City stuff from Dresden Files to make a campaign setting. It took like two sessions (about eight hours at the table) to get it together, and we didn't so much finish as just decide we had enough and stop. And I did more than half the work, with three others at the table, and I had to figure out how to fit it together. It really felt like more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to.





prabe said:


> The reason it took eight hours of table time, and the reason I ended up doing more than half the work, even though there were three others at the table, is because ...well ... it didn't feel as though anyone else at the table was coming up with much, if anything, and what they did come up with was ... not especially coherent. Even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed, and my willing suspension of disbelief was strained from the get-go.



I read this and was gob-smacked. I wrote a longer post in response to it but my computer crashed and ate it. And I know you've discussed this already with @Ovinomancer and so another long response probably contributes nothing to humanity.

But I really was gob-smacked. I've never run Dresden Files but I've read the setting-creation stuff in Fate Core which I would assume is fairly siimllar; and I've done a lot of collaborative setting and situation creation using other systems (eg Burning Wheel; Classic Traveller; 4e D&D; Cortex+ Heroic; Cthulhu Dark). I can't fathom how it would take 8 hours, whether or not it was being done by one or four people.

Your remarks that _it really felt more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to _and that _even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed_ give me the impression that you and your group were substituting prep for what the system assumes will be play.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 5, 2020)

Fanaelialae said:


> The OP is about whether the GM's role is the most important, not about methods of making the GMs job easier. If it were the latter, then I would agree that I am not contributing. However, given the actual topic of the thread, and how difficulty of GMing arguably pertains to it, I would say that I am contributing to the thread. Although, it might be fair to say that at this point we're both beating a dead horse...




Honestly, the OP was more about everyone needing to contribute, and about how one person's effort shouldn't really place them above the others in importance, I think. It's not declared outright, but the main thrust of the OP was more about the idea that the game is a group effort and everyone should contribute.

The OP acknowledges that the DM likely has to put in more effort....but the point seems to be that the additional effort should not afford the DM more "claim" on the game, nor should it free players from putting in some effort, too. 

Honestly, the whole "DMing is hard" angle came up mostly because people ignored the context of the OP and instead focused solely on the title of the thread, and they offered their answer that yes, the DM is more important because they are fewer, and that's because DMing is hard. 

But looking back at the OP now, these many pages later, and I'd say player input is actually a more important element of the OP than the difficulty of being a DM. Here's the OP below:



aco175 said:


> Another thread has me thinking about this.  On one hand the DM tends to be the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  On the other hand everyone is there to have fun and most times these people are your friends and family.  Everyone is giving up time to play and social norms tend to make things 'fair' to everyone.
> 
> I tend to think that everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  Now if that person is your brother or best friend, things become harder.
> 
> Not sure if you all are going to have vastly different opinions, but thank you.


----------



## aco175 (Mar 5, 2020)

Thank you @hawkeyefan I think I was trying to feel out if people on the site was thinking the DM was more entitled or felt more controlling over the other players in their game.  The word important was discussed and maybe that was not the best choice since everyone seems to agree that everyone is there to have fun and even though the DM does more work for the group, he is not more important in that sense.  

I think I was references some other threads that were coming up describing how some people drop players for not getting into their game or the "my game, my rules" mentality mostly when describing their homebrew and their changes to make their world.  I was getting the impression that some were feeling superior since they crafted their world and while others can come play in it, it is mine and I control how and what you can play.  

I was not sure how the thread would pan out, but mostly how I hoped, thank you


----------



## prabe (Mar 5, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I read this and was gob-smacked. I wrote a longer post in response to it but my computer crashed and ate it. And I know you've discussed this already with @Ovinomancer and so another long response probably contributes nothing to humanity.




Maybe a discussion will be more pleasant than you think.



pemerton said:


> But I really was gob-smacked. I've never run Dresden Files but I've read the setting-creation stuff in Fate Core which I would assume is fairly siimllar; and I've done a lot of collaborative setting and situation creation using other systems (eg Burning Wheel; Classic Traveller; 4e D&D; Cortex+ Heroic; Cthulhu Dark). I can't fathom how it would take 8 hours, whether or not it was being done by one or four people.




I was probably at least as surprised as you are. I'd participated in some collaborative setting-building in other games, and it had always been part of the first session, and it had worked, and it had been fun. Generally, everyone provided some limited number of ideas and the GM figured out how to incorporate them into something at least more or less consistent.

I'm looking at the Game Creation Worksheet in the Fate Core Book, and it's pretty simple. One page. Two spaces for Issues, six spaces for faces and places, each with at least one issue or aspect, some spaces to note where the game is going to fall on some mechanical spectra, and a little space for stunts and extras.

The equivalent in the Dresden Files game is three pages. One page is the high-level stuff (which we didn't use, IIRC), which has three spaces for themes/threats, each with ideas, aspects, and faces; spaces for the status quo; and spaces for big movers and shakers (maybe we did use this; I'd have to find my notes). The second page has nine spaces for locations; each location has spaces for a name and short descriptions, whether it's connected to a theme or a threat, an idea and an aspect and a face. The third page is like the locations page, but for people, with spaces for each for name, what they're the face of, high concepts and motivations, and relationships. It's a lot more to fill in, and it took us two sessions to get to the point where we were willing to go with what we had. To be fair, there was some broader setting-building stuff before that.



pemerton said:


> Your remarks that _it really felt more front-loaded work than I think it was supposed to _and that _even with some amount of work, the setting was kinda disjointed_ give me the impression that you and your group were substituting prep for what the system assumes will be play.




I suspect that, at least for the Dresden Files game, the expectation is that prep (at least setting-building) will be a form or a part of play. Certainly all that work at the beginning seemed like front-loading, and running based on what the players/characters were doing meant a lot more remembering what had come before, and keeping track of what might be happening before the players/characters inserted themselves, seemed like at least as much work as what I'm doing now for D&D, and in some ways more than what I had done for Mutants and Masterminds (the two games I ran closest to running Fate).

As for the setting seeming disjointed, I think maybe that's a matter of it being easier for one mind to be coherent/internally consistent than four minds. Certainly there were some players who wanted things I might not have chosen for a setting, had I been the only one choosing.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 5, 2020)

The fact that the players might want something you don't is kind of point isnt it? You leverage player engagement by allowing them include some elements in the setting they specifically want to engage with? Obviously it still needs to be collaborative, but by itself it doesnt sound bad. I'm sure there is some detail and nuance I'm missing hough.


----------



## prabe (Mar 5, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The fact that the players might want something you don't is kind of point isnt it? You leverage player engagement by allowing them include some elements in the setting they specifically want to engage with? Obviously it still needs to be collaborative, but by itself it doesnt sound bad. I'm sure there is some detail and nuance I'm missing hough.




I was perhaps being a little polite. There's a difference between choosing something I wouldn't have thought of, and choosing something I actively dislike, though that's not strictly what happened. What happened was that the player choices accumulated to something like a Steampunk setting (which I really don't like, much, but probably inevitable when one person wants to have Magic and another person wants to have Mad Science.) even though none of the individual choices was anything I had a real problem with, and I didn't want to veto player ideas in any event. That's most of why I say the setting felt disjointed.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Mar 5, 2020)

prabe said:


> I was perhaps being a little polite. There's a difference between choosing something I wouldn't have thought of, and choosing something I actively dislike, though that's not strictly what happened. What happened was that the player choices accumulated to something like a Steampunk setting (which I really don't like, much, but probably inevitable when one person wants to have Magic and another person wants to have Mad Science.) even though none of the individual choices was anything I had a real problem with, and I didn't want to veto player ideas in any event. That's most of why I say the setting felt disjointed.



That makes sense. Setting creation might need a little bit of initial direction depending on the genre and how wide open the choices might be.


----------



## prabe (Mar 5, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> That makes sense. Setting creation might need a little bit of initial direction depending on the genre and how wide open the choices might be.




Agreed. I myself am less capable of that level of moderation and I have reverted to doing roughly all of the setting creation myself, allowing players to place things in blank spaces. If I allow more player input into a future campaign, it'll have a lot more direction/limits, to be sure. I am capable of learning (I keep telling myself).


----------



## Jaeger (Mar 6, 2020)

aco175 said:


> ... the DM *IS* the person who arranges the game and puts in the most work.  He plans things and runs the game.  …
> 
> ...everyone needs to be having fun at the table.  I also think that the table needs to be a partner in making the fun.  This means that players should help the DM and play PCs that are part of the campaign that the DM is making.  Nobody wants to play with the player that is trying to disrupt the game and derail the plot.  ...




This is all self evident.

GM/DM rules the roost. Period. It HAS to be fun for them.

If players do not like it, they can vote with their feet.

I and many other GM's I know have _no_ problem getting long term players just running what we want to run.

Players are a dime a dozen - even the good ones. Which is why a good GM can easily afford to sift the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 6, 2020)

I'm the (overwhelmingly) main GM for my group. But I don't arrange the game sessions, and don't host. (My house is small; others in our group have big houses with nice big tables.)

I often initiate what we play. Other times it is done by vote across active campaigns or new systems/ideas that I suggest. The others certainly trust me to deliver something fun and worthwhile, but they're not embarrassed about having and voicing their own preferences!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 6, 2020)

I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's.  See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four.  Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 6, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's.  See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four.  Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.




True. You have some people voting along those lines (where they are the only DM at their table) gravitating towards DM being_ most important _given rarity_. _On the other hand I'm the primary DM for our group but there are 2 others, but I would still cast my vote towards _DM most important. _I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this category.

I think generally within the scope of our hobby DM's/GM's tick the most boxes in the hosting, prepping, planning session dates, keeping momentum going, recruiting, refereeing, entertaining...etc That is not to say that many players don't also tick these boxes from time to time or even often.

Even as a player I defer to the DM/GM. He has a unique role at the table that is not shared by any player. Sure a player can also be DM/GM at another table or another campaign - and in that table or campaign I would vote him at the _most important_.

Perhaps the real debate is what does _most important_ mean in that context. Speaking for myself, and I'm not nearly eloquent to describe it correctly or fully, like some others on this board, but by the DM/GM being the _most important_ it is the acknowledgement that he/she is the leader (spearheader) of the game being played. If not him/her, another will be nominated/found to take that position. *Typically* a RPG game cannot be played without such position being filled, thus making it the most important.

EDIT: And just like a leader in any organisation MUCH of the success of the overall venture is directly related to THEIR efforts.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 6, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I'm the (overwhelmingly) main GM for my group. But I don't arrange the game sessions, and don't host. (My house is small; others in our group have big houses with nice big tables.)
> 
> I often initiate what we play. Other times it is done by vote across active campaigns or new systems/ideas that I suggest. The others certainly trust me to deliver something fun and worthwhile, but they're not embarrassed about having and voicing their own preferences!




I am in sort of the opposite position as this. I am not currently the main GM for the group, but I host the games, arrange the schedule, and for the last two campaigns, have initiated what game we are playing.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 6, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's.  See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four.  *Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.*



Well, technically yes it does work.  All that last sentence means is that the rest of the group voted with their feet and now you have to go out and get more "dime a dozen" players.

Personally, I like playing with people I also like outside of the game, so having to go get some strangers to play the game with in order to run the game like a Commandant isn't my thing and won't work for me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's.  See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four.  Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.




I think then the question becomes... How typical is your particular situation?


----------



## atanakar (Mar 6, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Well, technically yes it does work.  All that last sentence means is that the rest of the group voted with their feet and now you have to go out and get more "dime a dozen" players.
> 
> Personally, I like playing with people I also like outside of the game, so having to go get some strangers to play the game with in order to run the game like a Commandant isn't my thing and won't work for me.




Agreed. The worst thing that can happen to a DM is to loose his group of players. It happened to me three times since 1981 because people moved to other cities, got divorced, had kids and other real life events. Each time it was hell to rebuild the group. It takes time for a group of strangers to become comfortable and be on the same page. You have to weed out those who don't fit. Telling a player not to come anymore is the worst part of the DMs responsibilities. «dime a dozen» does not work for me either.


----------



## prabe (Mar 6, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I think then the question becomes... How typical is your particular situation?




I'm DMing two groups. One group has six players; of them I know for certain that four have DMed, the other two are new (this is effectively their first campaign) though one has expressed interest in DMing. The second group has five players, three of which are also in the first group and among the players I know to have DMed; of the other two, I'm pretty sure one has DMed and that the other has not (though I don't think the one that hasn't is new to the game, particularly).

I don't think I have typical groups, especially considering that they're both in game stores.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Mar 6, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I think then the question becomes... How typical is your particular situation?




I think this is the sort of question that we can get a lot of anecdotes about, but for which there is little data (though it is possible that Wizards collected this data at one time...?)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 6, 2020)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I think this is the sort of question that we can get a lot of anecdotes about, but for which there is little data (though it is possible that Wizards collected this data at one time...?)




Oh I agree... which is why I didn't state what I think the typical group has.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 6, 2020)

atanakar said:


> Agreed. The worst thing that can happen to a DM is to loose his group of players. It happened to me three times since 1981 because people moved to other cities, got divorced, had kids and other real life events. Each time it was hell to rebuild the group. It takes time for a group of strangers to become comfortable and be on the same page. You have to weed out those who don't fit. Telling a player not to come anymore is the worst part of the DMs responsibilities. «dime a dozen» does not work for me either.




Did you move? Because you say you lost an entire group of players multiple times? I have lost a handful of players along the way but never an entire group. In any event that is no fun to lose an entire group. Losing 1 committed player is bad enough. Just over a year ago we lost an amazing player due to health issues. We ended running several games in the hospital towards the end realising 7 games in one month (our table's record). He loved to roleplay.

I'm not sure how it is in the USA with the large cities, maybe some areas are fortunate to have a greater concentration of players, but it definitely isn't easy to find players in Cape Town. So I echo your statement - there is no 'dime a dozen' to find players that suit you, especially the older you get.

Sadly I haven't invested enough time with roll20, discord...etc, I absolutely hate running D&D combat over the net. So my anachronism has gotten the better of me in that department.


----------



## prabe (Mar 6, 2020)

I can't speak for @atanakar but I live in between two large-ish cities in the US, in a sprawling web of suburbs dense enough that there are three well-supported gaming stores in easy driving distance (and a gaming space unrelated to any of those, also an easy drive away). I'm something of an introvert, but I started running in gaming spaces because I wanted to game with/meet new people. I've had gaming buddies move away or otherwise leave, but it's been a few years since I hosted TRPGs in my own home.

I'm happy not to need to find games online, to meed my gaming needs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 6, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I think people's perceptions of the importance of the DM is strongly colored by whether or not their groups feature multiple DM's.  See, "vote with their feet" to me means that someone else is running the game because, well, we have, currently, three active DM's in our group and it used to be four.  Trying to play the "players are a dime a dozen" card doesn't really work when all or at least most of your group is perfectly willing to take your place.




I think that's certainly a part of it. In my group, everyone who participates has also GMed in the past. Some more than others, but all have experience. 

I also think it depends on other factors for their group. Are they playing at a store or at someone's home? Are the participants all friends outside the game, or is the game the only thing that has brought them together? 

My group is made up of friends. So the idea that I'd tell them to beat it if they didn't like something about the game is just bonkers to me. This is something we all do together.

I get that it may be so for others....maybe there's a queue of people waiting to join a public game at a store, and so asking a problem player to not return and give that spot to someone who wants to play makes total sense. 

But it's all situational.


----------



## atanakar (Mar 6, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Did you move? Because you say you lost an entire group of players multiple times? I have lost a handful of players along the way but never an entire group. In any event that is no fun to lose an entire group. Losing 1 committed player is bad enough. Just over a year ago we lost an amazing player due to health issues. We ended running several games in the hospital towards the end realising 7 games in one month (our table's record). He loved to roleplay.
> 
> I'm not sure how it is in the USA with the large cities, maybe some areas are fortunate to have a greater concentration of players, but it definitely isn't easy to find players in Cape Town. So I echo your statement - there is no 'dime a dozen' to find players that suit you, especially the older you get.
> 
> Sadly I haven't invested enough time with roll20, discord...etc, I absolutely hate running D&D combat over the net. So my anachronism has gotten the better of me in that department.




Once I moved to the big city to study. The second time was a bad divorce between my two best players. People took sides. It was ugly. The third time the group was never stable. The two permanent and best players got feed up and left. I didn't feel like continuing the search for replacements. I had a DM burn out. Played only wargames for a while. My current group is 3 years old and everything is going very well. My best group ever. Crossing my fingers.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2020)

Imaro said:


> I think then the question becomes... How typical is your particular situation?






Imaro said:


> Oh I agree... which is why I didn't state what I think the typical group has.




Then, why did you ask the question?  If you agree that we have no idea what a "typical" group is, then why would you ask if my situation is typical?  Seems a bit ... bad faith to me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 7, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Then, why did you ask the question?  If you agree that we have no idea what a "typical" group is, then why would you ask if my situation is typical?  Seems a bit ... bad faith to me.



Because I think you're smart enough to arrive at the same conclusion I did. So since you posted it like it was proof of something...I figured I'd use a question to highlight that fact (as opposed to spelling it out since I felt that was unnecessary and might offend you).  That said...you posted it like it was some kind of proof and if you knew that it wasn't why did you post it?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 7, 2020)

Imaro said:


> Because I think you're smart enough to arrive at the same conclusion I did. So since you posted it like it was proof of something...I figured I'd use a question to highlight that fact (as opposed to spelling it out since I felt that was unnecessary and might offend you).  That said...you posted it like it was some kind of proof and if you knew that it wasn't why did you post it?




I'm pretty sure we're just talking past each other now.  

I posited that people's personal experiences strongly color their opinion.  Those whose experience tends towards single DM groups tend to express the idea that the DM is most important more strongly than those whose experience tends towards groups with multiple DM's.  

Note, not proof of anything.  Just a noticed tendency.  I try to be pretty careful about only talking about my own group and I try very hard not to extrapolate my experience onto others.


----------

