What do you perceive is harder? Being a Player or a GM?

[gbaji]

That being said by far the hardest part of any game is out of game table management, but I reject the assumption that that falls under the GMs purview.

It's usually the reponsiblity of whomever is actually hosting the game. Which is *usually* the GM (not always though). Either that, or I'm totally misunderstanding what you mean by "out of game table management".

I'm really approaching this from the point of view of workload. A lot of the other stuff is incredibly subjective, and highly dependent on playstyle. Some players take on lots of extra work/duties, but that's not a "required player role". Typically though, anything that some player doesn't take on tends to fall to the GM by default. And many things, players can't do because they don't have the information needed to do so.

Again though, "easier" and "harder" are subjective, and somewhat describe something akin to "like" and "dislike", which I don't really think is appropriate. I love GMing games. It's extremely rewarding, and I just plain like weaving together what the players want to do and some ideas I have for NPCs, and then seeing the result (and hey, toss in some other "outside" stuff along the way just to keep everone on their toes). But yeah. Whether we call it harder or easier, it is definitely a lot more time and effort to GM than to play.

For instance, I usually have 4-8 pages of character development written by the time we sit down to play. Many people have no interest in that, but it's part of how I decide who my PC is, and what I hope he or she will grow into.

Case in point. 4-8 pages is a pretty extreme amount of character development for a player to write. One time, when creating that character. But that's like a typical amount of written content consumed in a single game session as a GM (that might cover a couple sessions, if it's combat heavy). And that's not counting anything I may write about the game setting itself and provide to my players (which is also a one-time thing, but it's a lot of them over time).

Also, it's worth pointing out that DMing and playing are differently hard. At the table, its about the same level of difficulty. As player or DM, I'm am fully engaged from start to finish, trying to track everything and keep full notes. But what I'm trying to do is different. As a player, I know what my PC has done; I'm trying to learn what the situation is, and decide how to react to it tactically.

As a DM, I know the situation; I'm trying to keep track of what effect the PCs' actions have had, and to rule fairly and competently, while simultaneously deciding how the NPCs react to it.

Yeah. I get this. But the player "playing hard" is all happening at the table. It's part of the "play" of the game. The GM is also playing that out too (and sure, the GM has some advantages in terms of knowledge here). But the GM has to create every single thing that the players then have to "figure out" during play. It's not easy at all to set up a mystery for the players to solve and make it both hard enough that it's not immediately obvious, but difficult enough that they have to actually work at figuring things out. It's not easy to put together a set of encounters designed to present a specific amount of challenge to the PCs such that they are entertained and actively have to "work to win", but not so dangerous/deadly that they get wiped every other time they walk out the front door.

And yeah, players also have a hard time. But usually, if the player is having a really hard time playing and is actually "struggling", then it's probably because the GM has done something wrong, either in the design or execution of the adventure.

When I'm playing (for instance) a gnome illusionist, I spend far more time researching everything he can do, or can grow into, in any situation that might come up in the next few levels. So I've drilled down far deeper on my PC's possibilities than I do as a DM. But as a DM, I need to understand what each of my players' PCs can do right now. Not what they might choose in four levels, like I do with my own PC, but everything they can do as they are. I also need to understand what each NPC might do -- in this game in this situation.

So my research as a player is deeper, but my research as a DM is far, far wider.

Fair enough. I will point out, however, that while some players do spend that amount of time/effort planning out their character advancement, many do not. And guess who they come to for questions about what they should do with their next level, or where to put skill points, or whatever? Yeah. Could fall to another player at the table. But often falls to the GM. The GM is also the default person a player goes to when creating a new character as well, usually because the GM has the best idea of what is available in a given area, what options will work, what wont, and can even perhaps hint to a player "hey. It might be useful to create a <insert class here> for the next adventure". And ultimately, since GMs always have final say on any new build, we're going to be at least profreading whatever anyone else has come up with annyway.

But yeah. Valid point about the depth thing. Players are absolutely more detailed and "in depth" about their own characters than the GM is ever going to be about any NPC. I will point out, on the other hand, that there is not much in the way of parallel for players with regards to GMs creating intricate (and often quite "in depth") plots and events going on in the game setting. I often spend hours and hours doodling out ideas, and the working them out in my head, this way and that way, until I get something that "works" before writing it into the setting. And it has to work, not just from a "this makes sense as something that could happen", but also "this make sense as an interesting/engaging thing for the players to interact with". It's usually very easy to do one of those two things. But it's quite hard to do both at the same time.

And absolutely, some players will spend a lot of time on such things relating to their own characters, but it's still the GM who has to integrate that into the game world.

Fortunately, it's play, not work, in both cases.

That is true. Or at least "work that pays off when you play", so it's all totally worth it. I would absolutely not spend the volume of time I do prepping for games if I didn't get a payoff when actually running/playing.