Do you prefer to be a player or GM/DM?

[Catullus64]

GM/DM. Making up worlds, cultures, creatures, adventures, and magics is the better part of why I'm into this hobby.

It also gives you power, which is not intrinsically bad. The GM has authority to shape a lot about the pace, tone, and feel of the game, and I think that power well worth the responsibilities which accompany it; and if a rule system has frustrating or badly thought-out elements, I like being in a position to remedy them directly.

[Biggus]

GM/DM. Making up worlds, cultures, creatures, adventures, and magics is the better part of why I'm into this hobby.

It also gives you power, which is not intrinsically bad. The GM has authority to shape a lot about the pace, tone, and feel of the game, and I think that power well worth the responsibilities which accompany it; and if a rule system has frustrating or badly thought-out elements, I like being in a position to remedy them directly.

Well put, this is very similar to how I feel. Getting people together to play and keeping a group together in the long term is notoriously hard; I've spent far more time creating adventures/worlds and tinkering with dysfunctional rules (I usually play D&D 3.5 so there are plenty of them...) than I have actually playing. There's only so much time you can spend tinkering with a single character, but an entire world/game system can be a full-time hobby.

I do like to play as a player now and then, for a change of pace and to remind myself what the game looks like from the other side of the screen, but by choice I'd spend at least three-quarters of my playing time GMing.

[Psyren]

I enjoy both equally, but I expect I'll get even more into DMing as better tools/VTTs become available to speed up prep time and extemporaneous encounters, and things like surface tables, projectors, and 3D printers become even cheaper.

[Tarmor]

GM/DM.
Partly because I'm the one in my group who perhaps knew a bit more about RPG's to begin with, and was happy to both organise get-togethers and run games. Even now, I'm still the main person to organise anything that some/most of us might be involved in, even when it has nothing to do with gaming.
Secondly, I'm read heaps and very creative, always thinking of ideas from books/TV/movies that I could use, or simply coming up with ideas, creatures, locations, worlds or campaigns, et al, and often (but not always) putting onto paper/computer to develop further. If I'm a player, my creativity is mostly limited to my character concept and background.

That said, I'll still play nearly anything given the chance, to see what it's like. There's also NO GM/DM in lots of games - just players.

[Mastikator]

I lean 70% in favor of the DM/GM role.

DMing is a lot more work, but it's fun work, making worlds, locations, NPCs, quests, reading lore. All this stuff slaps. But my favorite thing about being a DM/GM is that I get to play the system, setting and the genre of game that I want.

The downside of this role is getting saddled with the hardest part: scheduling

Sometimes I like to kick back and just play a character too.

[Batcathat]

My preferences are probably pretty close to 50/50, at least over time. Or possibly something like 60/40 in favor of GMing, for similar reasons as others have mentioned – I just love creating stuff.

[NichG]

I'm somewhat picky about playing, so it's easier for me to GM most of the time, and I enjoy it. But if I have a really outstanding GM who I'm on the same page with and who is running something that can surprise me or that I'm unfamiliar with or is doing something really innovative, that would shift to 70/30 in favor of playing. Or even 80/20.

I don't have to have that to enjoy playing, but without that I enjoy GMing more since then I can try to find an innovative or surprising thing myself, which isn't so kind to do as a player...

[Satinavian]

I like both, but GMing is more stressful and there is always the risk of burnout and it is harder to do when you are really tired because of work or whatever.

I generally try to avoid running multiple campaigns at the same time. Running one and being player in one or two other groups is my sweet spot.

[Kurald Galain]

I prefer GM'ing, and the part I particularly enjoy is making a (short) list of important NPCs or factions, and deciding between sessions what they know and what they're planning on doing next, and then giving the PCs the chance to interfere with these plans if they want.

[Xervous]

In forever GM land I often wonder what it’s like to play, go looking for opportunities, then realize yet again that I have been unable find groups running systems and game styles that are engaging enough to be worth my time. So it’s back to my own campaigns, with blackguards and hook horrors.

I’d like to spend more time as a player, but a 7/10 group loses to an evening spent painting minis, booting up a game, or sometimes going to sleep early.

[Easy e]

60% GM and 40% player.

[Jay R]

I enjoy both, but very differently. I've been running a game for a year and a half. It's likely to last for another year and a half. By the time it's done, I will be itching to play again.

Edit/postscript: Thinking it over, I think I prefer to play. [I certainly enjoy DMing, but I enjoy playing more.] But in the words of Ernest Thompson Seton:

"Because I have known the torment of thirst, I would build a well where others may drink."

[Lemmy]

GM is much more fun, IMO... But not only it's A LOT more work... It can also be extremely frustrating. Seeing all that work go to waste when there's no game or when the campaign takes a turn that honestly bothers you... It can be seriously exhausting, both emotionally and intellectually.

Basically, to me, at least... GMing is like 5x more fun, but it's also 100x more work and has the potential to be 200x times more frustrating when things go bad for whatever reason...

That's part of why I haven't GM'd in a while. I had some serious burn out a couple years ago, and to this day I haven't recovered. I still play on occasion, but that's about it... Every time I consider GMing again, that thought is followed by memories of the reason I don't do it anymore and I immediately lose any inclination to change that.

[Easy e]

I thought about it a bit more, and my 60/40 lean towards GMing is still true. There is something exhilarating about guiding a game and being surprised about where it goes.

However, that time as a player is critical to help continue to improve my GMing. It gives me a lot of insight into that side of the GM screen and how to try to manage things when I am the GM. Without the periodic playing, I would be much a worse GM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Both.
Each offers a different kind of enjoyment.
If you DM a lot, which I have, it is sometimes refreshing to NOT know all of the stuff that's hidden behind the screen and to discover / find out / blunder across it through the play experience.

[threefivearchve]

I've never understood people who hate the idea of DMing or look upon it as a "janitor" or "babysitter" role. You get to choose what the scenario is, who the enemies are, and how and when things happen. You are ALWAYS in the spotlight. It does require more work outside the game, but that lessens with experience, to the point you can run a session off a couple of notecards, or with a dungeon map and key on graph paper if needed.

I've always preferred to be a DM. Being a player is like only getting to do half the game. People always look upon the DM as someone to be grateful for. I always am grateful to my DMs and thank them, but when I DM, if anything I am thankful to the players for being willing to play in MY scenario and let ME choose the monsters, the NPCs, the roleplaying, the type of adventure, et cetera. Do I have a lot of work to do? Yes, but it's the kind of thing I want to do anyway.

[gbaji]

That's actually a bit of a toss up. I love both, but for very very different reasons.

As many people have stated, being the GM is great because you get to write the story, plot, environment, setting, etc. You get to introduce and run NPCs, and dream up all sorts of fun things and then play them out, in a way you really can't do as a player. There's also a lot of satisfaction when the game runs well, and everyone is having a great time. On the flip side, it is massively more work. The very thing that makes it satisfying when things run well, can also induce stress ahead of time (and even while running the session itself). I've had days where I'm frantically trying to finish up some bits for the game sesssion that starts in like one hour. And did I mention a ton more work?

Playing is fun, but in a very different way. I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy all the hard work someone else put into the game I'm playing in. I literally don't need to worry about anything other than showing up with my dice and my character sheet. And I get to focus on just my character that I'm actively playing. This allows me to roleplay that character, and really get into the environment and events occuring, in a way you really can't when you're the GM. As a player I don't have to think about 18 different things that are going on. I can just play in the moment (well, mostly). And I certainly spend more time thinking about and planning things for my own characters far more than I do for any NPC I may run as a GM (and that's probably a good thing, now that I think about it).

So yeah. Both are super fun. I'd probably say I prefer GMing most of the time (so maybe 70/30?). It tickles my worldbuilding funnybone in a way that merely creating and running a character does not. But man is it enjoyable to take a break and let someone else run for awhile.

[Anonymouswizard]

They're different, but I generally lean towards being an improv heavy GM. I like turning up to a session with a folder full of NPCs and a starting point and seeing where the players go: I don't know who killed Duke Fluffykitten, but I know when the player's assumption needs to be wrong for a satisfying session (generally when they accuse the butler).

It's not that I dislike being a player, there's a fun to be had with coming up with a course of action that the GM is on board with. But it doesn't have the hectic energy of five players all trying to pull the game in different ways and the challenge of trying to balance everyone without reducing anybody's fun.

[LibraryOgre]

I wish I could play in the games I DM. How does that fit?

[AntiAuthority]

I prefer to be a player, but I find enjoyment in GMing too. Though currently because of how my last time as a GM went, I'm kind of hesitant to do it again anytime soon.

As for why I enjoy being a player... I like role-playing my characters, watching my character get more powerful and the interactions my character has with others. I especially have fun when me and the other players get into shenanigans... Not anything particularly bad, but moments where everyone laughs, like a drinking contest or helping an NPC with something important to them.

As for why I like being a GM, I like seeing how my players handle situations, seeing how they influence the narrative and honestly just enjoy their concepts. I also like playing villains and letting my players punch said villains in the face. I usually make a world and that's fun for me too lol. I also sometimes GM if I feel the current GM could use a break and be a player themselves. But I understand not every GM and player's playstyle will work together... I like GMing, just with players that have a similar idea of cause-and-effect as I do, as one player's comments made me drop the game earlier and soured my views on it for a while after.

[Flyfly]

I absolutely prefer GMing! Funnily enough, I think being a player is actually harder for me than being a GM.

I think this has to do with me trying to be a "good" player when I play, which I find to be pretty hard. But as a GM, I can just prepare some cool tools to interact with PCs and follow their lead! And my tools aren't really restricted by anything, while being a player I can only do what's within a given PC's grasp.

[gbaji]

I wish I could play in the games I DM. How does that fit?

Hah! Yeah. I get that sometimes too. Then again, that path runs the risk of being "that GM"...

[Jophiel]

In person, I probably enjoy DMing more but am happy to play. But, these days, my games are online via Roll20 and I just don't have the enthusiasm to figure it out so I stick as a player while the coding nerds in the group talk about rebooting the API because none of the spell effects are showing up. Makes me miss the days of "Oops, need one more orc mini... Ok, this mummy is actually the orc leader" being the largest technical concern.

[TheRagingKobold]

Nominally I enjoy GMing and most everything it entails, except for two of its facets: putting together (play-by-post) combat maps and planning ahead. The latter perhaps is less of an issue – particularly in PbP, and at any rate I like to think I am reasonably adept at making things up as I go – but the former rules out running any system that uses tactical grids by default as I am not at all keen on applying the "theatre of the mind" approach to those. I do genuinely love coming up with an overall premise/story framework, NPCs etc. and watching how the PCs bounce off it all (rarely in the way I would have expected them to, naturally :smalltongue:), but for the aforementioned reasons and my less-than-frequent posting rate I've abstained from any GMing attempts for a while now.

That being said, I do have considerably more character concepts in mind that I'd like to see play out than I have ideas for games I would like to run, so I suppose the answer to this thread's overarching question is right there. :smallsmile:

[Pugwampy]

I like both .

I have DM,d more than play only because most players dont want to dm.

[Vogie]

Personally I have a tendency to zone out if I'm a player. I'm so used to being the GM where you almost always have something to do, you're always in the moment, and it's really easy to focus - I don't have a chance to zone out.

[lightningcat]

While I prefer to be a player, I also do a lot of homebrewing/design work for both sides of the table, which necessitates me doing a lot of GMing.

[RNightstalker]

Whether I'm a GM or PC, I'm always the Dice Master lol.

Back to OP though, I'm the guy that enjoys playing. If we need a GM, I'll do that. If we need a player, I'll do that. Hell I've played with 3 PCs as a player in some sessions. If I had to pick one though, I'd actually probably go player. Yeah I can do cool things as a GM, but to be able to work a build as a player just seems more legit than having a DM pet.

[DammitVictor]

There are a number of games I run frequently that I really wish someone else would run, for once, so I could play in them. My standard PHB/OA/SJ D&D game, Street Fighter: the Storytelling Game, any of the settings I'm trying to develop for publication. Marvel Heroic Roleplayin, especially in the eXiles format I initially popularized.

But I see running a game as... a kind of a performance, a kind of a service, and there's nothing I love more than combining "making people happy" with showing off.

[Jason]

I am a GM/DM/Referee/Keeper/Loremaster/Storyteller/Whatever who spends a lot of time playing while waiting for his turn to GM again.

I enjoy playing, but I generally enjoy GMing more.

[Easy e]

I imagine that people on a message board dedicated to RPGs tend to skew towards Gamemasters.

[Jason]

I imagine that people on a message board dedicated to RPGs tend to skew towards Gamemasters.

Because Gamemasters spend much more time between sessions thinking and talking about RPGs?

[earthseawizard]

Forever DM for 20 years. The idea of orchestrating a living fantasy world that players around a table can interact with through rules written in physical books still intrigues and excites me and I consider that to be playing Dungeons & Dragons. The prep is also playing to me so, so not work. I've only ever played with close friends so experienced little burnout or frustration with player antics.

[JusticeZero]

I always GM. I don't play in published IPs, and it's easier to keep out of things like Waterdeep or Tattooine or whatever if I'm the one controlling the worldbuilding.
Plus, I feel like I have a hard time contributing as a player. I'm quiet a lot while other people are doing things and then I feel really out of sorts trying to contribute. Like, my contribution should be better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have ADHD, and it can be hard to keep focused on the game as a player, especially when you have both a big group and a crunchy ruleset. I usually prefer GMing, where I'm engaged 100% of the time.

I'm also the one who tends to find/write new systems, which also tends to land me in the GM seat.

[Witty Username]

I prefer DMing, but playing a PC is how I recharge.

I really like the act of making, the notes, characters, scenarios etc. And DMing is a better outlet for that. With a single PC I will always wander a bit mentally, its worse for video games where I can just start another run or mess with creation. As a DM, that mucking around is all content I can use periodically.

But alot of the social and prep stuff is not natural to me, after awhile of DMing, burnout sets in and I need to be away, rest up, and do the whole process over again.

[KorvinStarmast]

Forever DM for 20 years. The idea of orchestrating a living fantasy world that players around a table can interact with through rules written in physical books still intrigues and excites me and I consider that to be playing Dungeons & Dragons. The prep is also playing to me so, so not work. I've only ever played with close friends so experienced little burnout or frustration with player antics. Bravo, glad you joined into the conversation.

[TheHalfAasimar]

I'm gonna be honest, I would like to DM and play 5e, but I just want to play third party/homebrew stuff for 5e, or make it when I DM for my players to use. Which they don't. Hence, why I like to DM. Homebrewing feels more friendly. As well as, I can use third-party rule systems when the official books don't cover something I want to use. Only problem is, not many DMs (from my experience) will allow third party/homebrew.

As for PF2e, I'm gonna go with play, because there is just a lot more random stuff to keep track of with PF2e, and while I like both, I'd rather play, because character creation is just so much more in-depth and rewarding when you create a character who can backflip over his foe, scream at them, and then stab them in the foot so they can't move. Or a Barbarian, who, when raging, grabs a conviently placed piano/rock/halfling and throws it at an enemy. And then, if I want to do something, there's probably rules for it on the Archives of Nethys, which is my favorite RPG resource because it has 3 RPG's worth of content (PF1e, 2e, and Starfinder) all for free.

And that's about all the RPGs I've played.

[Leon]

Err on the side of player, have GMed in the past and would like to GM now that i have a bit more energy but energy levels are always a concern for thinking about running anything regularly as wouldn't want to inconvenience people. Has happened enough as a player in recent times.

[MrStabby]

I like both, but GMing is more stressful and there is always the risk of burnout and it is harder to do when you are really tired because of work or whatever.

I generally try to avoid running multiple campaigns at the same time. Running one and being player in one or two other groups is my sweet spot.

Er... the idea of simultaniously DMing multiple different campaigns scares me. I have a job, kids, a home... but thats a level of responsability I am not ready for.



Both being a player and being a DM has its joys and frustrations.

As a DM, when things go well, its superb. The feeling you get when people explore your world, delight in what they find, grasp onto details and subtle plot hooks and make Epic Fights actually Epic is awesome. That feeling of having done it right is fantastic.

On the flip side, the buck stops with you. An encounted doesn't work out - you can' really blame your players. People losing interest, thats on you as well. People not enjoyin characters and wanting to swich or ignoring plot hooks or flat up murdering NPCs than anoy them - it might no exclusively be your fault but the onus is on you to learn from the bad thigns that have happend. Its hard work, and not just in the way prep is hard work.

I do love to DM but I find I DM to my own tastes. I like exploration parts of games and the discovery of a world. I like to encourage and support homebrew and I wnat a game that supports characters over builds and that sidesteps the constrained optimisaton problem that so many games devolve into. Its a style; I don't caim it to be the best one but it works for me - I just wish I got to play in games of that stye rther than DM them. I have no douby that our group's other DMs feel the same way about their games.

As a player I find the powerlessness a bit frustrating some times. To have a vsion of what your character should be good at an bad at, but by the constraints of whatever system you are playing (usually D&D 5e for us) you can't deliver on that in game. Or maybe there is an exciting chaacter development path for your PC, but reluctantly the campaign Doom Clock limits time for side quests and others take prioriy. I find that sometimes my strong beliefs around DMing unfortunately undermine enjoyment of some games. Again, the oppositie is also true - DMing handeled well in a game in whch are a player is beautiful and having DMed helps you appreciate that a lot of circimstances have no universally good solution.


I guess ideally I like a mix of he two. I think that the rewards are higher for DMing and I think that the engagement can be a ot deeper but the effort is a lot more and I am not always sure its worth it. Sometimes its good to just pick up your character and do your thing.

[Quertus]

Definitely prefer to be a player. Not 100% sure the path to maximum enjoyment is me being a player 100% of the time, but I’d definitely prefer 80+% of my time be spent as a player.

World building, cultures, style? I do all that as background for my characters.

Adventures, magic systems, power? Single author fiction.

To put it in the most approachable terms I can think of, as a player, I get to experience the mystery, experience the world, experience the unknown; as a GM, the only unknown is how will the players respond to this content differently than if this were single author fiction? And… that’s just not enough, for me.

[AMFV]

GM/DM. Making up worlds, cultures, creatures, adventures, and magics is the better part of why I'm into this hobby.

It also gives you power, which is not intrinsically bad. The GM has authority to shape a lot about the pace, tone, and feel of the game, and I think that power well worth the responsibilities which accompany it; and if a rule system has frustrating or badly thought-out elements, I like being in a position to remedy them directly.

I prefer DMing although I don't like to never play, which has been the state of things for me. I love designing encounters and problems and watching how things unfold when the players deal with those things. I could take or leave world building and rule modification. Those things are alright, but they're not the main draw for me.

[Xtreme_Banana]

I hate GMing. Tried several times, never managed more than 5 or so sessions.
Thinking up campaigns and finals is fine, but I cannot force myself to think about what do I want next session. Sessions are just too stressful, even if everyone tells me they've had fun: I almost never do. I have this mental hangover after every GMed session, regardless of how it went and forcing myself for next session becomes harder and harder. I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible.

I hate that, and tried many times but for now it seems I cannot change it. The worst thing is that it's easy to get together a new group as GM, and painfully hard to do so as a player.

[KorvinStarmast]

I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible. I think I see where your problem lies.
Not sure if you have had a chance to read any of The Alexandrian's posts about GMing on his site (https://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101), but his articles about not making plots, but setting up situations (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots), are worth reading.

[CreepyShutIn]

I've tried GMing, but I'm not well suited to it. Executive disfunction means I'm not gonna be able to plan ahead, and simple lack of ideas means I falter and fizzle out when asked to improvise. I have had some success with modules, but even that's pretty limited, and the players clearly chafed at the railroady nature of it and my inability to adequately respond to their ideas.

So, player, by necessity.

[gbaji]

I think I see where your problem lies.
Not sure if you have had a chance to read any of The Alexandrian's posts about GMing on his site (https://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101), but his articles about not making plots, but setting up situations (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots), are worth reading.

Yeah. He's got some great advice on that site (he's probably a lot more prepped than I usually am as a GM though).

I think where the stress comes in is exactly what you're talking about: Trying to "write a story". I think a lot of GMs make the mistake of trying to make their games run like the adventures they see in TV series' or Films. It's not surprising, really. We've all watched these things, and see the spins and shifts in the story as the characters make decisions and take actions, and it's all super exciting to watch, so it's reasonable to assume that would be super fun and exciting to play out, right? Then, we try to do this, and nothing works. And the reason is very simple: There is no longer a single author, and the players aren't going to just coincidentally do exactly the things that are needed to make those kinds of stories work.

The key, as is mentioned in the links, is to not try to write the plot to a story, but rather simply write what Justin calls "situations". Ironically, I've used similar arguments in the past, but what he calls "plots", I call "scripts", and what he calls "situations", I call "plots". So... terminology aside, the point is to not write a planned sequence of events and actions that lead to an end. Instead, just write what is happening. What are the bad guys doing? Why are they doing it? What is their end goal? Then, fill in with "how do the PCs discover what's going on?" (what I call "the hook"). Then follow the story naturally from there.

This does not mean that you can't effectively storyboard your adventure. You just should not put in specifics about what happens, but instead what is where, and what events will happen if not changed, and what could be done to prevent it. It's also a mistake to overfill the adventure. What I generally do is just write a very very broad outline of the adventure. What is happening. How the PCs get involved (and you have to think about why they care, and why they may be the only folks available to do what needs to be done if that's relevant). Provide within the adventure both the bad guys and what they are doing, and the tools the PCs may need to use to stop them. That doesn't mean hand them out, but make sure they exist and the PCs have some means (clues) to get them.

I often will also outline broad chapters for the adventure. These are often the expected (broad) sequence of events I expect to happen. But I do not detail those chapters initially. They are just headers in the main document for the adventure. I'll fill those in as I go (and may change them entirely based on what the PCs actually do). What I expect and what the players actually do are not always the same thing. While I may have created a specific set of "things that are needed to stop the BBEG", that does not mean that the order and means by which the PCs achieve/obtain those things will be how I expected going in.

Each chapter is an individual doc that I write as they become needed. I have my broad outline to follow (which is rarely more than a short paragraph). I fill in details based on what the PCs are actually doing, but also to inject some additional stuff that may be there for them to encounter and interact with that may have nothing to do with the "main adventure" (you want the world to feel full of "things to do"). And, of course, whole new, unexpected chapters may occur if/when the party decides to go off on some tangent.

The point is that, as long as I've already decided what my main bad guys are doing, and where, and why, I can kinda run that in the background while the PCs do whatever they want to do. And IME, the players will generally take the hook and run with it, so I've never had a problem with the players just ignoring the adventure or the threat of some bbeg.

Dunno. It works for me. It's also relatively low stress. I'm as much "finding out what happens" as the players. Sure, I'm writing content kinda in front of them as they go, buit that's perfectly fine. It's pretty easy for me, if I know that "the party is going to be wandering through the mountains to get to <some specific place, to do some specific thing>, to just come up with what's in the mountains along the way, and what they encounter when they get there (even if that's not part of the "main adventure"). I think where folks get stressed is from writing too much stuff. Less is often more here.

[MrStabby]

I hate GMing. Tried several times, never managed more than 5 or so sessions.
Thinking up campaigns and finals is fine, but I cannot force myself to think about what do I want next session. Sessions are just too stressful, even if everyone tells me they've had fun: I almost never do. I have this mental hangover after every GMed session, regardless of how it went and forcing myself for next session becomes harder and harder. I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible.

I hate that, and tried many times but for now it seems I cannot change it. The worst thing is that it's easy to get together a new group as GM, and painfully hard to do so as a player.

Not a total solution, but a partial one: I have recently run a campaign with the premise that it woul be really rail-road-y. Listed as such from the start. Basically linked dungeon crawls.

Setting expectations took the pressure off. Less open world meant less stressful social ineractons. Everything was controlled. It wasn't my finest DMing but it was what I could commit the time to delivering.

[crimson_witch]

I definitely prefer to be a GM. However, that was not a conscious decision, I realized that after many years of gaming. I just love the amount of creativity, and the satisfaction that comes if the players like what I do. The feeling of a job well done when a story emerges from the series of scenes.

Sometimes I manage to play, but it's actually harder for me to come up with a character than a game. I'm still confused about why that is so, but that's how things with me.