Is the GM playing the game?

[zinycor]

We talk about the "GM" or "DM" and the "PLAYERS", but ¿isn't the DM playing too? Sure, he would play by different rules and have interation much different to the game, but in the end he's playing... or is he more like a storyteller or judge of the rules and that makes him to not be really playing? I ask this question more out of curiosity than anything else, but had a good time thinking about this...

So what do you think?

[Teapot Salty]

If the GM can't call running a dnd game "playing" then they really shouldn't be running it. (Working under the assumption that doing something with little to no practical effect other than fun is considered playing )

Incidently, that's a problem I have when GMing, I try to play the players.

[zinycor]

If the GM can't call running a dnd game "playing" then they really shouldn't be running it. (Working under the assumption that doing something with little to no practical effect other than fun is considered playing )

Incidently, that's a problem I have when GMing, I try to play the players.

I guess people could pay you to GM, never heard of something like that, now I would do it... but i guess it could happen

[Grod_The_Giant]

The GM/Player terminology is a curious bit left over from the earliest days of the hobby. It's frankly not great-- not only in the implication that the GM isn't a "player," but that he's, well, the master. It's part of the reason why in my homebrew system I've switched over to "Stars" and "Director," which I think conveys the roles a bit better.

[zinycor]

The GM/Player terminology is a curious bit left over from the earliest days of the hobby. It's frankly not great-- not only in the implication that the GM isn't a "player," but that he's, well, the master. It's part of the reason why in my homebrew system I've switched over to "Stars" and "Director," which I think conveys the roles a bit better.

Sounds great!!! i was actually thinking about "Heroes" but the term Star makes it much more awesome and doesn't restrain people into being heroic

[Kid Jake]

Honestly, I usually don't feel like I'm playing so much as spectating. I set the stage at the beginning of the night and then just sit back and watch as my players go increasingly crazy. They describe me to their girlfriends/wives as 'the xbox that makes our game play.' and I generally describe them as the 'beautiful train wreck I can't look away from.'

[Knaight]

The GM/Player terminology is a curious bit left over from the earliest days of the hobby. It's frankly not great-- not only in the implication that the GM isn't a "player," but that he's, well, the master. It's part of the reason why in my homebrew system I've switched over to "Stars" and "Director," which I think conveys the roles a bit better.

It's also a standard - there are so many alternates (Storyteller*, Seneschal, and that's just some of the S ones) employed by a great many different systems, so it sticks around as a general term. That said, I'd consider it a subset of players, consisting of a number of different groupings of tasks, whereas the distinct "player" concept is itself a subset of players consisting of a different set of groupings. While the exact task grouping is highly game variable, there's still a general idea of what's encompassed by both that's consistent enough to be useful. There are also games that fall well outside of the GM-Player paradigm in some way or other, largely involving playing around with these very tasks.

*Which I like even less than Dungeon Master, given the implications of the players having no input.

[HammeredWharf]

I think of it as an event: I'm the organizer, they're the guests of (dubious) honor. Doesn't mean I can't have fun.

[MrNobody]

To me the DM (or whatever you want to call it) certainly is playing!
The dm plays a game from a different perspective: while every player has his own character, DM's char is the world.
Players use abilities and cast spells, DM sends monsters, traps, various encounters (combat and non-combat).
Just like players have their chars react to the world around them, the DM makes the world react and change at players actions. In some way, the DM plays a different game or a game in "hardcore" difficulty setting.

I admit that this point of view is not suitable for every DM: inexperienced DM and tha ones that choose the vile path on "total railroading" are more similar to that definition of " xbox that makes game play" used by kidjake. In their game the story run with little input by players, the world is static, not reactive so they're less playing and more "making play".
However, even in this cases, DM remaints to me a "special player".

[Yora]

RPGs are not really a game, and the participants are not really players. The terminology is already arbitrary.

[DM Nate]

Of course I'm playing. I'm playing all the delightful NPCs and combat encounters. And building an entire world as I go.

They only get to play one boring little character.

[draken50]

I wouldn't really call what I do playing. I'm generally trying to manage pacing, and expectations, and create situations and encounters that my players can imagine with some measure of consistency, as well as all sorts of other things.

I mean, I roll dice (mostly because I like the noise). I speak as different characters and the like, just like my players do... but it feels more complex than being a player. I feel more like a host, I'm really there to give the players things to engage with and become interested in. To create moments of excitement and cleverness and joy and sorrow. The game world exists for them, without the players there is no game, but while the world really doesn't exist beyond their characters, it must seem to.

Ultimately, I just don't feel like I'm playing a game.

This may have something to do with me being just... a horrible player. I probably wouldn't let me into one of my games.

[WarKitty]

Honestly, I usually don't feel like I'm playing so much as spectating. I set the stage at the beginning of the night and then just sit back and watch as my players go increasingly crazy. They describe me to their girlfriends/wives as 'the xbox that makes our game play.' and I generally describe them as the 'beautiful train wreck I can't look away from.'

This is a very good description. Especially when dealing with players with a major inability to get a hint.

[Garimeth]

Is the quarterback playing? All he does is call the play and throw the ball.

The DM is definitely playing, and he is definitely part of the group (team) he just fills a different spot on the roster.

And when the quarterback does a bad job of repeatedly trying to run the ball himself we call that bad DMPCs. (I couldn't resist!)

[Jay R]

Is the quarterback playing? All he does is call the play and throw the ball.

That's the wrong sports analogy. In the original Dungeons and Dragons books, before coming up with the term "Dungeon Master", that role was called the referee. And in any game, the referee is making rulings, not playing the game.

The DM is definitely playing, and he is definitely part of the group (team) he just fills a different spot on the roster.

He is not on the team, which is the party. He's not on the opposing team, which is the monsters. He's trying to be impartial, and treat both fairly.

And when the quarterback does a bad job of repeatedly trying to run the ball himself we call that bad DMPCs. (I couldn't resist!)

Yup. This is what happens when the referee tries to be one of the players.

I enjoy being a DM. It's both fun and satisfying. But like being a referee in any other game, it isn't playing the game, it's running the game so others can play.

--------------

Having said that, I recognize that language can be slippery, and that this is to some extent a linguistic question. You can define "playing the game" to include the DM's role if you like. I would not do so because that kind of definition blurs some distinctions that should be kept, well, distinct.

[Prince Raven]

I think of RPGs more as cooperative story telling than a typical game. I tell the story to my players in regards to the setting, minor characters, and obstacles, and my players tell me the story of how the main characters interact with the world and other characters, and how they face (or run away from) the obstacles in front of them.

[zinycor]

RPGs are not really a game, and the participants are not really players. The terminology is already arbitrary.

care to explain a little more?

[DrBurr]

Pretty sure in the original DMG it mostly refers to players of the game as either the Dungeon Master or the other players, with the word other implying the DM him or herself is a player. Just a special kind of player who plays by different rules and controls and builds the Dungeon that the other players explore. Which doesn't really say the others have no control over the game they're just unaware of what the Master has set up. Kind of like a surprise party where the host catches the other guests off guard, in this case the surprise is a poison needle trap and a dozen cannibals.

The term Game Master though does imply master of the entire Game including the PCs which is why I always prefered it when other game systems tried to come up with their own term for the GM.

[Millennium]

RPGs are not the only kind of game where "many" of the players work together, but "one" works in different ways, and often at cross purposes. In most such games the one is working against the many, and wins only if they lose (or vice versa): the classic "traitor" mechanic. This is where RPGs stand out, because the one isn't a traitor: he still has a different agenda from the many, but he doesn't necessarily lose if they win, and he doesn't necessarily win if they lose. Any "one and many" game is going to be a very different experience for the one than for the many: in fact, that's part of the allure. But the one is still a player, even if of a different sort.

I do like the stars/director terminology, though. If we continue the metaphor, would NPCs become "extras"?

[Garimeth]

That's the wrong sports analogy. In the original Dungeons and Dragons books, before coming up with the term "Dungeon Master", that role was called the referee. And in any game, the referee is making rulings, not playing the game.



He is not on the team, which is the party. He's not on the opposing team, which is the monsters. He's trying to be impartial, and treat both fairly.



Yup. This is what happens when the referee tries to be one of the players.

I enjoy being a DM. It's both fun and satisfying. But like being a referee in any other game, it isn't playing the game, it's running the game so others can play.

--------------

Having said that, I recognize that language can be slippery, and that this is to some extent a linguistic question. You can define "playing the game" to include the DM's role if you like. I would not do so because that kind of definition blurs some distinctions that should be kept, well, distinct.

Hmm, I won't necessarily disagree with you, but I would liken D&D more to a pick-up game. That said referee is definitely more an accurate descriptor than the QB. I think I like the ref example better, but definitely as a "not pro" qualifier, because the average DM is not being paid.

A better wording might even be that while its debatable if the DM "plays" the game, no one would contest that he "participates" in the game. Which, when combined with the referee example, definitely captures what I was trying to say much more effectively.

Good catch!

[DM Nate]

in this case the surprise is a poison needle trap and a dozen cannibals.

I'd imagine poison needle traps are counterproductive for cannibals.

[NichG]

How about '[Mad] Scientist' and 'Experimental Subjects'? I'm kinda of the opinion that GMing is as much about messing with your players heads as anything that actually occurs within the game. 'Does the world shape their behavior?' 'How will they react to this kind of situation?' 'How do they respond to different kinds of rewards?' 'How do they make choices in the face of uncertainty?' 'Do they differentially value objectively equivalent things?' etc.

[Knaight]

That's the wrong sports analogy. In the original Dungeons and Dragons books, before coming up with the term "Dungeon Master", that role was called the referee. And in any game, the referee is making rulings, not playing the game.

I'd consider this analogy dubious as well. To start with, the way referee's work is in adjudicating rules that generally emerge from the opposition between two teams (whether this is something like someone trying to cheat because they are losing or hockey degenerating into a fist fight), as a neutral arbiter. The 'content' of the game, such as it is, is created by the teams (or individuals) playing against each other.

The GM? They actually create things. They are very much a participant in what happens. It's not like, if the characters pick a fight with some bandits, the bandits are played by another group of players and the GM is just there to enforce rules disputes. They aren't something like the judges in Magic tournaments, which are much more like referees*. With the amount of creative output that is involved in GMing, I'd hesitate to call it not playing.

*Though this is secondhand information, as I've never actually been to a Magic tournament.

[jedipotter]

So what do you think?

The GM plays the game, but is not a Player.

[draken50]

I think the DM/GM as opposed to players is more suited if you consider the products. I'm going to go more from a 3.5 standpoint here, but most of the books and advice given for the GM seems to be based off the use of pre-made adventures. The advice/information provided in those same books seems to be with the purpose of allowing GMs to create their own pre-made adventures to then send the players through.

From that standpoint, the GM really isn't a player in a game, and in my opinion, calling it a game in the classic sense is more fitting due to the ability to have more pre-conceived goals on the players part. This would be oppose to more free-form campaigns and the like. Some could argue that they're one in the same, but personally I believe there's a pretty big difference.

So in a pre-made adventure, the GM is really following directions prescribed, and arbitrating any rules as needed. The GM basically acts as the AI for all other characters, having them act as he/she believes they should, often with some guidance from the adventure materials. This is too me, simply because there's not really a convenient way to provide an AI for each combat situation. In this situation, I really feel the GM isn't playing the game, because there's no proscribed way for him to win, whereas the PCs have some goal involving beating the bad guy or saving the damsel or stealing the loot that may come with gradients of success.(more loot, keeping npcs alive, ect.)

In games outside of that structure though... even the term game as we tend to think of it really breaks down.

The GM is playing, if you mean in the terms of using imagination, and having fun, but a kid on the sidelines of a soccer game waving a stick at invisible foes isn't playing in the same sense as say... the goalie of said game is. I see tabletop as basically the equivalent of the kinds of games we'd play as children, and that most of the rules are there just to avoid the:

"Bang! I shot you! NO you didn't! I have a shield belt of invincibility! Yes I did! Because I have a plasma cannon and that breaks through shields!"

kind of shenanigans.

[nedz]

That's the wrong sports analogy. In the original Dungeons and Dragons books, before coming up with the term "Dungeon Master", that role was called the referee. And in any game, the referee is making rulings, not playing the game.

This is because one thread of D&D's origins was multi-player skirmish wargaming, which is a bit like PvP, and since those games have an umpire this analogy was made.

I prefer the Film Director analogy. Does Hitchcock appear in any of his movies (ignoring cameos) ? No, but he is all over the movie. This is still an analogy though, so it's not perfect.

[Jay R]

This is a semantics issue. No English word has a single unambiguous meaning. [The Oxford English Dictionary has 35 separate definitions and sub-definitions for "the".] There are reasonable times to use a definition of "playing the game" that includes the DM.

Consider the following theoretical conversation.

Friend: What were you doing last Saturday afternoon?
Jay R: I was playing D&D.
Friend: Cool. What class is your character?
Jay R: Oh, I wasn't playing. I was the DM.

In two sentences in a row, I used "playing" in both senses - to include the DM, and to exclude him. And both made sense in context.

But at the table, I do not use the inclusive definition, because it blurs a crucial distinction for no gain. At the table, they were playing the game that I was running.

[Cikomyr]

The Game Master is not playing the game.


He is making it.

The players are playing HIS game.

[Raimun]

It's a game in the sense that it has a set of rules.

Any real actual person who has a direct effect to the game, while controlling a character or characters is playing the game.

I'm assuming that most games have NPCs but even if all the characters were PCs, I would still say the GM is playing.

Of course, the game is different for a GM than it is for the "players", as we call anyone taking part to a game that is not GM.

The issue is pretty much semantics.

[Cikomyr]

It's a game in the sense that it has a set of rules.

Any real actual person who has a direct effect to the game, while controlling a character or characters is playing the game.

I'm assuming that most games have NPCs but even if all the characters were PCs, I would still say the GM is playing.

Of course, the game is different for a GM than it is for the "players", as we call anyone taking part to a game that is not GM.

The issue is pretty much semantics.

No. That's called a game system.