Why do people think the GM should sit at the head of the table?

[Hackulator]

The head of the table is a terrible spot for the GM. The GM should sit in the middle of one of the long sides of the table. This gives the GM easy access to the battlemap and makes it so that they are close to all the players.

[The Glyphstone]

If your GM occupies one side of the long edge, that means either the entire player group is on the other side (giving variable access to the battlemap), or they have players on their flanks which can have issues of its own. Whereas if the GM sits at the head of the table, the map and players can be condensed on that end as close to a square as possible while still providing the GM with a 'side' all to themselves and ensuring they remain equidistant to the players on either side.

[ArkenBrony]

The optimal way to play is in a big room with desks or table space haphazard for everyone. And a map on the floor in the middle. And space around the outside for the dm to walk around. It’s really fun that way.

[Anderlith]

The DM should sit at the middle of the long side of a table with the other players along the other side like the Last Supper. The long table is the Battlemap table. The DM should then have a small card table or the like to his side with his notes & such & blocked from player view

[Pex]

The DM should sit where ever the playing group finds it best for the DM to sit.

[OldTrees1]

Where the DM sits and where their materials lies depends on what works best for that DM and the table shapes available.

Personally I prefer 3 characteristics (unordered):
1) Having nobody adjacent or behind me. This allows me some privacy when checking my books.
2) Being able to reach across most of the table. This allows me to setup and manage the map. I also like this to be true for all players.
3) Taking up as little of the perimeter as possible. I don't need more width than a player, so I don't want more width than a player. This also follows from the symmetrical concern of #2 because wasted perimeter means a larger average radius to the table.

Summary: a circular or regular polygon (of 4+ sides) table fits my needs best.
1) The sides rapidly bend away from me which means nobody.
2) Since the diameter is equal if I can reach across the table, then so can everyone else.
3) Since the sides rapidly bend away, I can easily minimize the perimeter I use.

If only long tables are available, then I take 2 seats. Basically what Anderlith said. One in the middle of a long side for when I am managing the map and one standing/sitting away from the table for privacy when consulting books. It is not ideal but it is the best I can manage for my needs if I must use a long table. Although depending on the size of the group we might migrate the group to one end of the long table.

One time we experimented with two long tables in the shape of a V with some support underneath the map. This let me walk up to the map while still giving the players easy access to the map. Necessity might be the mother of invention, but stubbornness is the father.

[Mechalich]

Having the GM sit at the head of the table makes it easier for the GM to conceal materials that the players are not intended to see, like statblocks, while the GM is referring to them because the end of the table is a naturally controlled space and the GM can retain greater awareness and control of who walks behind them. It also means the GM can place whatever supplies they need - pile of books, laptop, box of minis, etc. - on a corner where they aren't in anyone's way.

Also, I feel it's important to note that for many games there may not even be a battlemap at all. Not all systems use such things.

[Yora]

As GM, I need space to spread out all my material. Preferably in a way that doesn't make my stuff ending up before the players to the left and right.
If you have a really big table, you could have the players on one side and take the other side to yourself, but that makes it harder for the players to talk with each other.

End of the table is just the most convenient.

[RazorChain]

I don't care really, I just need a space to move and a place for my laptop.

[Studoku]

Merlin solved this by making a round table for his D&D group.

[KillianHawkeye]

I need A LOT more space as a DM than I do as a player, not just horizontally but also in terms of the depth of the space. The head of the table is truly the only viable location.

[hymer]

Merlin solved this by making a round table for his D&D group.

Every time someone tried to move a mini in the middle of the table with a lance, there was a 1.13% chance it ended in a duel.

One thing I haven't noticed anyone saying: The GM wants to face the players. Sitting next to them means you turn your back on some to get eye contact with others.

[Knaight]

I see no reason to be prescriptive about this - different groups will find what works for them, given the space they have. That said, it usually comes down to what gets prioritized over what, with each table configuration having advantages. Being at the head of the table makes it easy for everyone to see and hear you, which in a game which is basically a rules moderated conversation at heart is really useful, it also makes it easier to keep notes and the like hidden (whether this is actually hidden per se or just out of the way enough that people won't see them by accident). That might well be prioritized over easy reach of a common map.

For instance, I don't tend to use maps at all. This sets up a pretty obvious prioritization scheme, which usually means the head of a table - though with smaller groups that might change; I've played entire campaigns at a tiny coffee table with me on one side and both players on the other.

[The Extinguisher]

because the "traditional" role of the gm as the adversary to be faced by the players is still kinda baked into the assumptions of most tabletop games, and still informs how we interact with the game system


oh, you mean what practical reasons?
ive never played at a table where there's a significant difference in where everyone is sitting. Do most people play at really long tables?

[LordEntrails]

The DM must sit high on a pedestal. With lighting such as to be imposing and scary. With a spotlight shining brightly into the eyes of the current player's turn.

This is mandatory and if you don't do it this way then you are having "bad wrong fun"!

[Quertus]

So, for me, it depends. Sitting in the middle reduces the maximum distance between GM and the furthest player; sitting at the end makes eye contact easier.

I am rarely overly concerned about players looking at my notes, but sometimes need additional space.

[Mr Beer]

I don't mind where I sit, so long as there's room for my giant gold-plated DM throne.

[D+1]

The head of the table is a terrible spot for the GM. The GM should sit in the middle of one of the long sides of the table. This gives the GM easy access to the battlemap and makes it so that they are close to all the players.

I need space for my books, maps, notes, dice, piles of minis, snacks, etc. It's more space than players need to be sure. I also often don't want players to see maps, dice rolls, notes and such - and neither do they. I use DM screens and sit at the end. When I need access to the battlemat and rest of the table I... stand up and walk. It's a tired old method but still works really well. And I utterly fail to see why being physically closer to all the players by being in the middle as opposed to the end of the same table is so imperative.

If it were a 10' conference table, maybe, but in fact I've been there and done that. The players just sat closest to the end where I was at.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I've never thoughts about this, usually based on the arrangement of the space we're playing in.

Basically, I have my own edge, and everybody else distributes themselves around the other edges. If the space is large, or there's something behind me I want to use [like a board], I'll usually have the long edge, if the table is small and space is at a premium, I'll usually have the short edge. More relevantly, I usually sit facing the entrance to the space, so that players enter in and sit down without passing behind me.

[Slipperychicken]

Keeping a side of the table to his own helps ensure that no-one will inadvertently peek his notes, and that he can see all of the players easily without turning too much.

Also sitting at the head of the table is loosely associated with authority, so that can play into it in cases where GMs desire such symbolism.

With a long table however, the argument can be made for sitting about the middle to keep everyone within reach of the game-mat.

I don't mind where I sit, so long as there's room for my giant gold-plated DM throne.

This is good thinking. The head of the table is wherever the throne is situated.

[geppetto]

I sit at the head for 3 reasons.

1. i need more space for books, laptop etc.
2. I have a whiteboard hanging on the wall there I can use for notes the players can see or rough maps.
3. its my table and thats where i always sit.

[Estrillian]

I don't have a lot of room, and our gaming table is a square with a semi-circular extension on one end crammed into the end of our living room. Since you can't get out from the sides without people getting up, I sit in a corner against the wall, leaving the people who constantly need to get tea/coffee/bathroom breaks free to do so without knocking over all my stuff.

It isn't ideal

When I run at a gaming club and have more room I usually go for the long edge plan, so that no one is sitting beside me and reading my notes

[Eldan]

We don't use a battlemap, never have, never will. They only get in the way, take you out of the flow of the game.

So for me, it's much more important that I can look everyone in the eyes easily. Hence head of the table.

[Willie the Duck]

Why do people think the GM should sit at the head of the table?

The head of the table is a terrible spot for the GM. The GM should sit in the middle of one of the long sides of the table. This gives the GM easy access to the battlemap and makes it so that they are close to all the players.

<Thread title added to OP quote>

You seem to have some strong opinions about how the game should be played, indicating that there should be one rectangular table, a battlemap, and that the GM needs to be close to it all. That's certainly not a wrong way to play, but hardly universal.

Gary (supposedly*) DMed such that his players could not see his face, and described all movement activity, noting player position within the dungeon on his own map at his small table. The players had to do their own mapping, and when they came to a contradiction ('no, there is no left turn at this intersection. Your map indicates you doubled back and should be at the intersection with the dead bugbear? Hmm, nope, that is not the case.') it indicated a mapper error or some kind of situation-in-need-of-investigation (magical teleportation, subtle slope means you have descended into another level of the dungeon without knowing, etc.).
*I seriously wonder at the veracity of this recounting, particularly how often this happened.

That style seems to be a rarity nowadays, but there are still plenty of different playstyles (battlemap vs. theater of the mind being a notable dividing line). Different room setups and tables available as well.

The DM should sit where ever the playing group finds it best for the DM to sit.

I see no reason to be prescriptive about this - different groups will find what works for them, given the space they have.

Pretty much this.

[Kardwill]

One thing I haven't noticed anyone saying: The GM wants to face the players. Sitting next to them means you turn your back on some to get eye contact with others.

That's the main reason I still GM at the head of table.
Nowadays, I don't use a GM screen anymore and don't have much notes or maps, just a few index cards and some stuff on my laptop, so having a player see the stuff in my playzone is not a problem. And I don't like the fact that some players are pretty far from me.

But this place allows me to look at all of my players, so that I keep all of them enguaged in the actions as well as in my descriptions, notice if one of them is bored or if they want to do something, jump quickly from one player to the other...

Having some of them to the sides would make it harder to make eye contact, to jump from one player to the other, to directly address them without more or less excluding the rest. I would forget they are here if I'm involved in a conversation with a player in front. They would risk getting less screentime, and that wouldn't be cool.

The ideal would be a round table or a circle of comfy seats, where everyone is facing everybody else (or sitting on the ground, like we did when we were playing D&D 35 years ago), but since my gaming room doesn't support this option...

[The Kool]

The ideal would be a round table or a circle of comfy seats, where everyone is facing everybody else (or sitting on the ground, like we did when we were playing D&D 35 years ago), but since my gaming room doesn't support this option...

I've been missing this, and would love to get back to it. My current place doesn't quite have the room for it... Also, some players have their information on laptops that are very unwieldy and need a table. (Yes, I'm aware he wastes time on it, I've known him to play Destiny 2 during a session when another player was determinedly distracting me. He plays wizards and clerics, he uses spreadsheets and internet references so I can't very well tell him to write it all down.) My ideal, I think, would be a room with plenty of open space and a circle of comfy chairs and pillows for sitting on the floor, with a low square table in the middle that can easily be manipulated from the floor to hold the map when one is desired. Add to that some kind of very large screen for my variety of references, and this room may just have to be custom designed.

[DMThac0]

In one group I sit at the "head" of the table. I do this so that the players have better access to the battle mat, they have the ability to see me with little effort, and I can set up my DM screen in such a way that I can still see the whole table while keeping my sensitive information concealed. The other reason is because there's only one table that we can use, so we had to figure out how to make it work.

I'm in my dining room for most of my games and I have a completely different set up. I have a large table for my players, I put the battle mat on that table. Off to the side I have a card table where I sit as DM, I'm actually removed from the players completely. There are multiple reasons for this, one being that it helps with camera placement for the stream. The primary reason is because I'm not a player, I'd rather sit off to the side and let the players keep together reinforcing the idea that they're a group. With me not at the table they're almost always looking to each other when discussing things, it also makes it easier to know when they're addressing me directly.

In my kids' game, I set the map on the living room floor and we throw dice there. I sit on the couch while they sit on the floor and we just have fun playing. Again, I sit slightly off to the side so that they spend more time talking to each other rather than me.

[Kaptin Keen]

It's not about placement at the table - it's about height. Ideally, the GM should have at least 30 cm of height over his underlings loyal subjects players. Particularly tall players should be issued correspondingly low chairs.

[LordEntrails]

I sit at the head for 3 reasons.

1. i need more space for books, laptop etc.
2. I have a whiteboard hanging on the wall there I can use for notes the players can see or rough maps.
3. its my table and thats where i always sit.

Is your middle name "Sheldon"?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

There are practical reasons tied to isolating the DM behind a screen full of secret information. There is also a symbolic tie in to the DM's status and the tradition of the head of the household sitting at the end of the dining table.

When space allows I prefer to take a whole long side of a rectangular table as it makes it easier to face everyone rather than purposefully splitting my attention between the group on the left and the group on the right.

The traditional set up is also very much tied in with the dungeon crawls with multiple secret maps and accessing lots of books for different monsters. For other games I prefer no screen or a screen that's half the height of a standard one.