Who is more important: The DM, or the Players?

[AnonymousD&Der]

I know we -all- have stories about how the big bad evil players mess up stuff for the DM and screw his or her plot bigger than a HalfDragonCube (what has been read shall never be unread. :eek:). And of course, there's Rule Zero: What the DM says is always right.

But I sometimes wonder why that's the number one rule for -everything-. You'd think that the people listening to / affecting the story are just as important as the one telling the story, since it'd be hard to share the story without someone to listen to.

When one of my groups tells the dm that it's her campaign, she can do what she wants, I always find that sorta weird... Not that we've been having problems, no. Just that -some- players willingly and completely surrender their rights to the DM.

Am I completely out of left field right now, or is there some order forged within the chaos?

[Herabec]

Really, both groups are, in my opinion, equally important. It's just that the DM as the essential god and story teller gets to make the final decisions about what happens in the game world he/she has come up with.

Without one, the other couldn't exist, but the DM always gets the final say.

[QuidEst]

Lessee…
Good DM without players: You have an author.
Bad DM without players: You have a bad fan-fiction writer.
Players without DM: Presumably they find something else to do.

I think the importance of the DM is tied to how good they are. An awesome DM can make do with even awful players. A poor DM is just there as a ref for a linear plot. Similarly, if a player isn't particularly creative, it'll probably be more enjoyable if they go along with the DM's plans. If they've got lots of clever ideas, it's more fun to poke and prod at the corners of what the DM has planned.

I haven't played much, though- I mostly write. XP

[Typewriter]

That question has kind of a double edge to it.

In my opinion the DM should bow to the whims of the player. If a player messes up your plot you deal with it, if a player kills the BBEG you deal with it, if your players(as in most of them) want to change a rule you do it.

The only time a DM should ever 'fudge' or 'force' something is if it's the greater good of the group.

But...

The DM is also the one who must enforce the rules. If a player wants something that will disrupt the game for the other players the only person who can stop him is the DM. You can have a group vote but then you have players taking sides against each other, and that's not a good thing, usually anyways.

So... kind of a trick question, but my answer would be the players because, IMO, the enjoyment of the players is up to both the DM and the players, where as the enjoyment of the DM is optional. Hopefully nobody wants to make the DM miserable, but the game should not be altered for the sake of the DM.

[Kefkafreak]

When I'm the DM, I don't prepare every single detail of my campaigns. I improvise all of the dialogues (I know how my characters will react to most situations, but I don't write the dialogues beforehand) and I let the players solve the situations I present however they want, which often leads to more improvising. In my case, the players are more important.

When my friend DMs, however, it's like playing a videogame. He railroads a lot and improvises very little. Some people may not like this, but it's just his style of DMing, and we don't mind it because his stories are awesome. In his case, the DM is more important.

So in short, in depends on the people playing.

[Caliphbubba]

When one of my groups tells the dm that it's her campaign, she can do what she wants, I always find that sorta weird... Not that we've been having problems, no. Just that -some- players willingly and completely surrender their rights to the DM.
?

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that maybe you're misreading this statement. In my mind saying "this is so-and-so's game" means exactly one thing...They are the one's that are running the game. It's "their" world, they can "do whatever they want" plot wise, but the players are the stars of the show.

The games that I play in, and the games I run tend to be the more organic and improv games with a strong core of rules understanding.

A "me vs them" attitude in a co-operative game is ultimatly futile.

[Herabec]

A "me vs them" attitude in a co-operative game is ultimatly futile.

Unless, of course, you're Gary Gygax.

[Caliphbubba]

Unless, of course, you're Gary Gygax.

in which case, you're probably playing a wargame instead anyway lol

[Alchemistmerlin]

Let's assume a classic 4 PCs and one GM.

4 PCs and 1 leaves, you have 3 PCs and a GM, game on.

4 PCs and 2 leave, you have 2 PCs and a GM, game on.

4 PCs and 3 leave, you have 1 PC and 1 GM, game on.


4 PCs and the GM leaves...
"Well, I don't want to DM, you do it."
"No, I suck at it, you should do it"
"It's so much work though!"
"Let's just play Fluxx"

[danzibr]

Well... I'd say a good DM leaves the players to create the story. They make characters with backstories, the DM builds off of said backstories, in the sessions the character make decisions which guides how the campaign develops. So... both roles are equally important. The players give the DM materials, the DM works with the materials.

[Quietus]

A good game, for me, is one wherein neither the DM nor the players are "more important". They're equally so, in very different ways. The DM is the authority, certainly; They're the ones putting in a great deal more effort, generally, developing the world and providing interesting conflict. But it's the players who guide the story, who give meaning to the DM's plots, and without them, there would be no conflict.

If you give a certain part of the game, perhaps one or the other might be more important to that aspect, but overall, they should, at least for me, come out roughly equal.

[Yora]

Neither is.

[Eloel]

Whichever side I'm on.

[kamikasei]

And of course, there's Rule Zero: What the DM says is always right.
Is there a canonical statement of "rule zero" out there somewhere? It seems to have suffered a lot of decay, as far as I can see.

My understanding is that it's supposed to be "what the DM says goes, in her own game". The flip side is that if the DM too frequently declares that she's decided some detail of her game or setting runs contrary to how the players expected, the players may get fed up and leave because they have no way of predicting their likelihood of success at anything they attempt.

I don't think either the DM or the players are "more important". I do think the DM "owns" a particular game, but should keep the players' enjoyment high in her mind when making decisions. However, she's not there simply to facilitate the players' enjoyment - the players are there because they expect they'll enjoy the game the DM pitched to them. There's a balance.

[Salanmander]

I would compare this to a very similar question in a different area: Who is more important, the teacher or the students? The answer there is very obviously the students. The teacher has more authority, and can decide unilaterally what the class covers, etc., but they are doing it /for the students/.

A DM's job is to create a game that is fun for the players. If they sacrifice the game being fun for their players in order to write the story they want, that is a thing that makes them a worse DM than they could otherwise be. The players are more important.

That said, both DMs and teachers need to know how to keep themselves happy. An unhappy DM won't make a game that is fun for the players. So a DM needs to keep their sanity and happiness a high priority, but it is done for the players.



4 PCs and the GM leaves...
"Well, I don't want to DM, you do it."
"No, I suck at it, you should do it"
"It's so much work though!"
"Let's just play Fluxx"

It's true that if the teacher packs up and goes home, class is canceled. But that doesn't mean the teacher is more important. School isn't there for the teacher, it's there for the students. In the same way, even though the DM is necessary for the game to run, the players are still more important.

(I've been a camp counselor for over 10 years, and am entering teaching now, so I'm coming at this from a very ingrained perspective of servant authority. This may affect my view.)

[Alchemistmerlin]

It's true that if the teacher packs up and goes home, class is canceled. But that doesn't mean the teacher is more important. School isn't there for the teacher, it's there for the students. In the same way, even though the DM is necessary for the game to run, the players are still more important.

(I've been a camp counselor for over 10 years, and am entering teaching now, so I'm coming at this from a very ingrained perspective of servant authority. This may affect my view.)

The difference, of course, is that the teacher is compensated for their efforts by pay. Pay me and I will gladly take up the role of servant authority. I'll even let you play your 1 rogue/1 fighter/1 wizard githyanki gestalt for pay.

If the DM and players were entirely equal then they would be doing equal work for equal fun. The DM, in 3.5 at least, does quite a lot more work though. The question of whether he's having as much fun as the other 3 or 4 people is of course entirely a matter of taste.

[Sir Enigma]

I would compare this to a very similar question in a different area: Who is more important, the teacher or the students? The answer there is very obviously the students. The teacher has more authority, and can decide unilaterally what the class covers, etc., but they are doing it /for the students/.

A DM's job is to create a game that is fun for the players. If they sacrifice the game being fun for their players in order to write the story they want, that is a thing that makes them a worse DM than they could otherwise be. The players are more important.

That said, both DMs and teachers need to know how to keep themselves happy. An unhappy DM won't make a game that is fun for the players. So a DM needs to keep their sanity and happiness a high priority, but it is done for the players.



It's true that if the teacher packs up and goes home, class is canceled. But that doesn't mean the teacher is more important. School isn't there for the teacher, it's there for the students. In the same way, even though the DM is necessary for the game to run, the players are still more important.

(I've been a camp counselor for over 10 years, and am entering teaching now, so I'm coming at this from a very ingrained perspective of servant authority. This may affect my view.)

There's a huge difference here though, which changes the whole situation: the teacher is getting paid to do a job. Your group's DM isn't getting paid (probably), has no obligation to run this game. He/she/whatever is there to have fun, just like the rest of you. The game is for the players, but it's also for the DM, and it's just as important that the DM is having fun.

Personally, I don't think you can say one is "more important" than the other - if either isn't having fun, something is wrong. A DM not having fun will eventually can the game; players not having fun will eventually leave; either way, the game is in trouble.

EDIT: Apparently someone let Alchemistmerlin roll up a rather effective Ninja...

[ImperatorK]

Whichever side I'm on.
This. :smallwink:

[Salanmander]

The difference, of course, is that the teacher is compensated for their efforts by pay. Pay me and I will gladly take up the role of servant authority. I'll even let you play your 1 rogue/1 fighter/1 wizard githyanki gestalt for pay.

If the DM and players were entirely equal then they would be doing equal work for equal fun. The DM, in 3.5 at least, does quite a lot more work though. The question of whether he's having as much fun as the other 3 or 4 people is of course entirely a matter of taste.

That's a fair point. I still believe that DMs with that mindset will make the best DMs, and that DMs, by taking on that role, agree to the task of creating a good game for the players. I would say that difference shows up in the "keeping themselves happy" bit, basically. Because it's not /actually/ a job (usually), it is reasonable for DMs to do things to make sure they're having fun with the game. (Whereas a teacher who modifies class to give themselves time to learn more things is doing their job poorly.)

[Gamer Girl]

''More Important'' is an odd way to put it.

In D&D before 2000, the DM was in absolute charge of the whole game and whatever she said was the law. 3E and 4E changed this to more of a group hug everyone is equal type of game where the rules are absolute.


For D&D to work, a DM has to have more control over the game then the players....that's the whole point of having a DM. The DM has the control as they are the neutral third party, without a character in the game. If players could make their own rules, the game would be pointless. You see this problem in games where each person(DM or player) gets one 'fair and balanced' vote:

Player 1:I vote that each character gets +100 hit points!
Players 2-4:We agree!
DM:Um...noooo
Player 1:Ha out voted again! Free hp's for everyone!

[FMArthur]

I'd compare it to whether the field and ball are more important or the soccer teams that play on it. Strictly speaking the field and ball are harder to get than players, but there simply is no game if you're missing either.

The DM's role is adjudication. That means handling disputes and resolving players' decisions in the game world. While I wouldn't say a game is impossible if the DM's word wasn't law, it's like a game without a referee. Do you remember how often your sports games broke down into arguments and players sometimes stormed off when you were a kid? Do you think adults are above such behaviour? Taking a look at all the mimes on professional soccer teams, I seriously doubt that adults are any better at self-adjudication than kids.

[Godskook]

When one of my groups tells the dm that it's her campaign, she can do what she wants, I always find that sorta weird... Not that we've been having problems, no. Just that -some- players willingly and completely surrender their rights to the DM.

1.Cause it really is the DM's campaign, in the same way the PC is the player's character.

2.You're committing a slight logical fallacy, in that just cause the DM gets rules and control the PCs don't, doesn't mean the DM is more important.

3.DMs do and should spend more time learning, creating, preparing, and otherwise enveloping themselves in D&D. This additional time invested is significant

[Kantolin]

Maliciously trying to wreck the DM's plot is a problem. If your goal is to derail game, it's usually about as easy for a PC to derail game as it is for a DM to make a game unfun.

Everyone around the table should be having fun. If the DM is only having fun when he's 'beating the players', then that's probably a dysfunctional gaming group. If the players are only having fun when they're 'beating the DM', then it's similar. If everyone's having fun, you win!

If everyone is having fun with the DM putting the players through the grinder, you win! If everyone is having fun with the DM focusing more on the narrative aspect, you win!

It's not that someone's more important. When I'm DMing, I frequently ask the players for their opinions on things and run with it. We're aware that we're all there to have fun and tell a neat story.


Player 1:I vote that each character gets +100 hit points!
Players 2-4:We agree!
DM:Um...noooo
Player 1:Ha out voted again! Free hp's for everyone!

Heh, if the rest of the party wouldn't have fun unless this happened, then I think that game has its own problems. :P

It's only slightly better than the DM that decrees 'Twenty Balors teleport in and eat your first level characters!'. Nonsense swings both ways.

[Taelas]

Look at it this way: The GM is the host. The players are his guests. The host provides entertainment for his guests, and the guests play nice.

The guests can leave at any time, but they're in the host's home, and his rules goes.

[faceroll]

I've always seen the relationship between players & DM as like that between crack-addicts and their dealers.


Look at it this way: The GM is the host. The players are his guests. The host provides entertainment for his guests, and the guests play nice.

The guests can leave at any time, but they're in the host's home, and his rules goes.

What if you're DMing at another's house?

[Shadowknight12]

That question has kind of a double edge to it.

In my opinion the DM should bow to the whims of the player. If a player messes up your plot you deal with it, if a player kills the BBEG you deal with it, if your players(as in most of them) want to change a rule you do it.

The only time a DM should ever 'fudge' or 'force' something is if it's the greater good of the group.

But...

The DM is also the one who must enforce the rules. If a player wants something that will disrupt the game for the other players the only person who can stop him is the DM. You can have a group vote but then you have players taking sides against each other, and that's not a good thing, usually anyways.

So... kind of a trick question, but my answer would be the players because, IMO, the enjoyment of the players is up to both the DM and the players, where as the enjoyment of the DM is optional. Hopefully nobody wants to make the DM miserable, but the game should not be altered for the sake of the DM.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is pretty much my opinion on a nutshell.

I would add, however, that as a player, I consider it my responsibility to ensure that the DM has fun. Just as I consider it my duty as a DM to ensure that the players have fun. DMing can be an ungrateful task, and I believe it's only polite and righteous to, well, act grateful.

[Taelas]

What if you're DMing at another's house?

Doesn't matter -- not speaking of a physical location, but the GM's campaign setting.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Everyone, honestly. If someone is not having fun, then everyone should talk about that out of character to make sure everyone does have fun.

[Occasional Sage]

The seminal question creates a false dichotomy.

[KillianHawkeye]

So... kind of a trick question, but my answer would be the players because, IMO, the enjoyment of the players is up to both the DM and the players, where as the enjoyment of the DM is optional. Hopefully nobody wants to make the DM miserable, but the game should not be altered for the sake of the DM.

I agree with you up until this point.

The fun of the DM is not "optional." If I DM a game and I don't have a good time, the result is I don't DM that game anymore and instead find a new game that might be more fun. Somebody else's fun is not more important than mine.

This is, for example, why I don't run Star Wars games anymore, even though I will occaisionally play in one.

[kiergon]

Who pays for the pizza?
Thats the most important guy that night.
in our group nobody wants to DM, so I tend to be the DM, but we figured a long time ago that we love dnd, but its just the pretext to have a guys night talk about useless stuff and problems in work and eat all kind of junk food you wouldn´t eat anymore (we are in our late 20s, early 30s).
We have almost as much fun sometimes playing Arkham Horror, or Mortal Kombat or Smash brothers...
but yeah, back to the question, for the above reasons the DM by a tiny bit is more important than a player, not the players as a group.

[Bob the DM]

That's like asking, who's more important, the quarterback or the rest of the team? The question is simply incorrect.
If you ask, who's more important, the QB or the receiver? The answer is the QB, he can throw it to someone else, or they can play a running game.

Everyone is playing DnD, but with different characters. So, who is more important, the DM, the fighter, the cleric, the mage, the rogue, etc? Why the DM of course. While the DM is the most important individual person there, all that means is that there is no game if he's not there. We're all players.

When I run my games, I always make it fun for me as well. 'Cause when the DM is having fun the other players usually are too. I make my gaming style very clear at the onset and if everyone want's in, then they play by MY rules, because that's the way MY world is, and everyone has tacitly agreed to them, even though they don't know what all the rules are. I also play by my rules. When an NPC I like dies, he's dead. If I want him back then I have to have some "in game way" to do it. Just like the pc characters. Sure it easier for me, but that's one of my 'Ex.' DM class powers. When my pc's destroy plot, I don't simply cancel out their actions. My NPC's simply react to the changes and alter their plans/actions to get plot back on track. I try my damnedest to kill my pc's (cause that's what the antagonists in the plot are doing, although only if they even notice the pc's existence), and the pc's try to kill the natural progression of plot by saving people who plot says should die/killing people that plot requires to live. I take very little interest in what the pc's specific abilities are, so they also have the feeling that they are the completely in charge of their characters. Plus it's more exciting, challanging and fun as a DM when you don't really have an idea as to what the pc's are actually capable of.

Everyone has fun and has some for of creative control. We all feel that no matter what pc or npc dies it's an equal playing field (or as equal as a playing field littered with dice can be), and (as a group), we all feel equally important to the entertainment we share.

Sorry that was longwinded but I'm trying to kill time right now until my wife gives me back the T.V. :)

[Thurbane]

Strictly speaking, neither is more important. D&D is a group activity, and the whole idea is for everyone to be having fun.

Having said that, IMHO, if someone is good enough to give up their time to run a game for me, I will usually defer to them in cases of a disagreement. this does not mean that the DM is beyond reproach, or that he is always right, but out of respect I believe that he gets the "casting vote" in the case of an impasse.

[Typewriter]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is pretty much my opinion on a nutshell.

I would add, however, that as a player, I consider it my responsibility to ensure that the DM has fun. Just as I consider it my duty as a DM to ensure that the players have fun. DMing can be an ungrateful task, and I believe it's only polite and righteous to, well, act grateful.

I definitely think people should do what they can to make things easier for the DM. The big kicker for me is that I think DMs should generally be the ones making concessions, balance and party opinion being the only exception.


I agree with you up until this point.

The fun of the DM is not "optional." If I DM a game and I don't have a good time, the result is I don't DM that game anymore and instead find a new game that might be more fun. Somebody else's fun is not more important than mine.

This is, for example, why I don't run Star Wars games anymore, even though I will occaisionally play in one.

On a one-one basis I agree, but when I have five players it's no longer just somebody else fun being more important than mine, it's a groups fun.

If I don't enjoy DMing for a group I won't, but my 'fun' should never be the determining factor in any in-game decision.

[Shadowknight12]

I definitely think people should do what they can to make things easier for the DM. The big kicker for me is that I think DMs should generally be the ones making concessions, balance and party opinion being the only exception.

And I agree, but I think that a DM should think carefully before playing with players who aren't familiar with basic courtesy and politeness. I've seen so many problems on these boards that I've never encountered myself, and that I could never imagine arising on the games I usually DM or play in.


On a one-one basis I agree, but when I have five players it's no longer just somebody else fun being more important than mine, it's a groups fun.

If I don't enjoy DMing for a group I won't, but my 'fun' should never be the determining factor in any in-game decision.

Agreed again, but I think that it's much like being a waiter. You are not entitled to the tip you might get, but the costumers should really keep in mind who is responsible for the enjoyment of their evening, and be courteous. It's not something you ask, mind you. It's something you have to keep an eye out for when choosing who to game with.

[KillianHawkeye]

If I don't enjoy DMing for a group I won't, but my 'fun' should never be the determining factor in any in-game decision.

Of course, but it definitely is a factor when it comes to out-of-game decisions.

The DM should never be forced to sacrifice his enjoyment of the game, nor should any other player. If you find yourself in a position of weighing your own enjoyment as the DM against that of your players, things have already gone awry. You must find a game which allows both halves of this equation to have a fulfilling experience.

[AnonymousD&Der]

Interesting food for thought from both sides... well, all three sides, anywho.

Another question: Is it ever okay to oppose something the DM does? From the denial of an ability to the turndown of a build, the way a story goes and what you are or aren't allowed to do in it, to the way the DM's characters (including GMPCS) act?

Just random thoughts of a random madman during random games with random die... Whenever something happens (still tame as can be) and I actually remember being curious about a thought, I write it down (because my memory is normally ****), and I ask about it later to who ever would be the most effective to talk to. In this case, to my friends on the playground.

[myancey]

Interesting food for thought from both sides... well, all three sides, anywho.

Another question: Is it ever okay to oppose something the DM does? From the denial of an ability to the turndown of a build, the way a story goes and what you are or aren't allowed to do in it, to the way the DM's characters (including GMPCS) act?

Just random thoughts of a random madman during random games with random die... Whenever something happens (still tame as can be) and I actually remember being curious about a thought, I write it down (because my memory is normally ****), and I ask about it later to who ever would be the most effective to talk to. In this case, to my friends on the playground.

Not that this is always the way to go--but I always tell my players that they can ask any questions they want. But if I make a ruling as the DM, it's final. You can tell yourself its stupid and pointless--but keep it to yourself.

I'll usually let debate precede a final ruling.

[Shadowknight12]

Interesting food for thought from both sides... well, all three sides, anywho.

Another question: Is it ever okay to oppose something the DM does? From the denial of an ability to the turndown of a build, the way a story goes and what you are or aren't allowed to do in it, to the way the DM's characters (including GMPCS) act?

Just random thoughts of a random madman during random games with random die... Whenever something happens (still tame as can be) and I actually remember being curious about a thought, I write it down (because my memory is normally ****), and I ask about it later to who ever would be the most effective to talk to. In this case, to my friends on the playground.

I believe that others are allowed to do as they will, so if they want to oppose the DM, they have every right to. I would certainly not get mad at a player for opposing me, but instead I'd sit down with him or her and work out a way for both of us to get what we want in a satisfying manner.

Me? I don't believe in opposing others in a game, whether player or DM. I would rather ask them in private if we could do X instead, or make a polite request to do Y rather than Z. Hopefully, that will mean that we'll sit down and work things out as I've just mentioned. If not, oh well. No great loss. I'll deal with it and move on.

[thompur]

The seminal question creates a false dichotomy.

Huh huh...huh huh huh...he said "seminal" huh huh huh

1DM > 1Player
1DM= All Players, even if All Players=1 Player

[erikun]

I suppose that, technically, if we choose one or the other, the players would end up more important than the DM. This is because roleplaying is a social activity, and a group of players without a DM could still freeform roleplay together. A DM without players could only create a story for themselves - it isn't roleplay without anyone there.

That said, I think a good DM has more impact on a game than a good player. Even the best player will only one or two other players engaged at a time, and only with the character they are running. A good DM can keep the whole table engaged in nearly every aspect of the game, throughout the session.

[Cerlis]

its not Rule 0 cus its the Ultimate best most imporant rule. Its rule 0 because its the answer to everything. basically the DM is the referee. if there is a problem or misunderstanding,or unresolved issue,its usually best for the DM to decide whats best for the game and then move on.

Naturally Rule 0 evolves into many other things that may or may not be accepted.

And to answer the question neither is more imporant. What is important is the group. If there is one situation in which 2 people are happy and 3 people are unhappy, and the alternate solution is 4 people are happy and 1person is unhappy, you pick the third option no one has mentioned yet that will result in everyone being happy. if there is no solution that probably means certian people have opinions that are not compromisable to each other and then you either have to reset the situation (finda new DM, force a player to leave) or find a way to suck it up. Which hopefully every adult knows how to do.

[Divide by Zero]

Everyone, honestly. If someone is not having fun, then everyone should talk about that out of character to make sure everyone does have fun.

This, very much. It's a game, and the point is to have fun. If even a single person is not enjoying it, no matter which side of the screen they're on, that issue needs to be resolved.

[Talakeal]

Asking "who is more important?" in almost any instance is a question of philosophy and impossible to answer in any real sense. Everyone's enjoyment is equally "important" as they are all human beings. Ultimately though, you need both a DM and players to run the game, and both sides need to be able to work together.

Now, I will say as players you are over stepping your bounds if you are vetoing the DM's plots or deciding what rules he has to allow.

Likewise, as a DM, you are over stepping your authority if you dictate a player character's actions or change the rules on the spot without a damn good reason.

If either party is doing these things you really need to step back and solve the problem on an out of game level.

[LaughingRogue]

This, very much. It's a game, and the point is to have fun. If even a single person is not enjoying it, no matter which side of the screen they're on, that issue needs to be resolved.

My group doesn't have a screen, we are too poor --- good job rubbing it in :(:sigh:

But I do believe everyone is equal of importance